interviews
Working at the Supranational Level
by Daniel Naujoks
July 31, 2019
This interview with Daniel Naujoks was conducted and condensed by frank news. It is part two of our conversation on The Mobility Mandala.
frank: Today, we often hear about a crisis of cooperation at the international level. It seems that many countries are reluctant to work together and many wonder about the place of the United Nations in today’s world. This is broad – but what influence does the UN have on nations today?
Daniel Naujoks: When we think about the influence of the UN it’s important to recognize that the UN isn't one entity. What we call “the UN” includes many different ways in which states interact with each other, often mitigated or moderated by certain entities of the UN. You have the General Assembly, which, for many people is the quintessential UN. And the Security Council – a highly political body and the only UN organ that has the power to take decisions infringing on states’ sovereignty. On the other hand, there is the UN of the many programs and agencies that have specific mandates and that work with governments and non-state actors to achieve something, like the UN Development Programme, the International Labour Organization, or the UN Environment Programme, to name a few.
When it comes to migration and displacement, we actually had several discussions on these topics at the General Assembly. In 2006, the UN organized the first high level dialogue on international migration and development, for which I was part of the organization team at the UN Population Division. In 2013, we had another high-level dialogue at the UN General Assembly. And after preparing and negotiating for two years, in December 2018, the global community adopted two new compacts. The UN adopted the UN Global Compact for Migration, for safe, orderly and regular migration, and the UN Global Compact on Refugees. These are non-binding agreements but the entire process of drafting these compacts was influential for spurring discussions among countries, between countries and civil society at the international level, and, even more importantly, at the national level.
Often we think of UN issues as matters at the supranational level, happening at the UN General Assembly hall here in New York or in Geneva. And that's true, that is an important venue. But, when we have a UN event or UN treaty, or in this case, a compact, there are also national stakeholders, human rights commissions, NGO networks, ministries at the national level, who have an interest in promoting certain issues. And they have consultations, the press picks up issues. Each country is a little different and it depends on the strength of certain stakeholders and their interests. For example, the U.S. government was largely absent from the process of the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Already in the beginning of the negotiations, the US declared, "We're out." Which, in my opinion, was not a very smart move, because even at that point, it was clear that it would be non-binding.
The risk of somewhat being held accountable would actually be low. And remaining in the discussions would have given the US a way to influence the content. But I think it was more about sending a political message to certain local constituents than an actual policy move in the international sphere.
What is remarkable is that even though the national government withdrew from the process, many U.S. cities said, "Can we be part of that?" New York, Chicago,and other cities really stepped in. Thus, in the end, there was a lot of participation in the U.S., even though the national government declared they don't want to have anything to do with it. So, sometimes, how the UN works is a little more complex than just what the official state department position is on an issue. And there are many venues. There are bilateral consultations, there are regional consultations on human trafficking, on labor migration and so on. There is a Global Forum on Migration and Development, the GFMD, which, since 2007, takes place every year. Governments come, they exchange notes on good policies, and on what can be done, mostly at the working level. At the working level, government officials cooperate and learn from each other. Again, it's non-binding. And the UN provides inputs, they chair sessions, they write background papers, they present case studies.
This is to exemplify that there are systems where policy learning happens in a much more informal setting, than through rigid rules-setting and treaty-making. This is something students in the UN Studies specialization here at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, that I direct, focus on when studying global governance. There are many different ways in which local and national governments, countries’ specific ministries, institutions, and agencies, international organizations, NGOs, and other groups negotiate and collaborate.
And then in the developing world, of course, the UN has a different role, because they are not just advising, they're working with local partners and in actual programs, like funding. And they're advising governments directly on how to do things.
But even there, what people from the outside often don't understand, the UN cannot work without the explicit consent of the host government.
So, when Kenya says that they want to close the refugee camps for Somalia refugees, UNHCR can plead, "Oh, please, refugees have rights and camps are bad." But, unless the Kenyan government gives UNHCR authority to work on certain programs, and provides UNDP consent to implement initiatives on livelihood strategies targeting refugees, these agencies can't do much. This being said, because of certain power asymmetries and donor interests, the so-called technical assistance from UN agencies in the Global South has the potential to influence policy decisions and exemplifies how the work of the UN can have an impact. But the political leverage of many agencies is not as large as is often seen. Which is why there's a lot of bargaining in the background. The things that you don't see that are not official.
Can you give an example?
DN: An example for the fact that the UN has to always ask for permission to work on certain issues is the persistence of the use of refugee camps. For the last 15 to 20 years, we know that refugee camps are not good for refugees. In the very short term, in the immediate aftermath of an atrocity, of a civil war, of a calamity, in the case of a sudden influx, camps may make sense to provide shelter and food and medical services to a large number of people. But, even in the medium term, they're very bad for the human development outcomes of people.
They lend themselves to a range of human rights violations, because people live in close vicinity to each other, people who are very heterogeneous among themselves. Just because they're all refugees, just because they're all from one country, doesn't mean they all get along well.
Camps generally don't provide sufficient economic opportunities for people, et cetera. That's why for some time now, we know that limited humanitarian responses to large refugee and IDP movements are not good for development. Definitely not for those people who are displaced, but mostly equally for surrounding communities. I actually developed a role-play simulation on the reasons for and against refugee camps and participants understand quite clearly the mix of international development and human rights logic with local politics and interests.
Addressing the shortcomings of classic humanitarian approaches, different UN agencies have been very strong in advocating for a more development-based strategy. For example, in the Syrian context, there has been the 3RP, the regional refugee and resilience plan, which is headed by UNDP and UNHCR, with I think, about 270 partners. It’s implemented in Syria’s neighboring countries, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Egypt. In addition to each country’s national plan there's a regional plan, which focuses not only on the humanitarian side but also development side. UNDP has been leading these efforts to provide livelihood support, skills, training, et cetera. But even there, we see that the implementation is hampered by a lot of challenges. Take Jordan. In the 2013 donor conference in London, Jordan pledged to give work permits to 200,000 Syrian refugees. They were very committed at the highest level of government.
But, a year later, there were almost no permits for refugees, and everyone asked why. We did a project with Better Work Jordan, which is a collaboration between the International Labour Organization and the World Bank. BetterWork Jordan published a report that my students drafted on why Syrian refugees did not get more official work permits. There are many reasons why employers couldn't employ refugees or couldn't expand their production. The refugees could only work in the export-oriented zones, mostly in the garment sector. They couldn't work in other areas. There was a distance they had to travel. Refugees often didn't want these jobs for a variety of reasons. There were many bottlenecks in the bureaucratic procedure to get work permits. In brief, there were many challenges at the supply side, the demand side, as well as on the bureaucratic transaction side.
These issues combined led to a situation in which this great policy that was mediated by the UN and other donors to actually empower refugees to be economic actors, didn't have the impact people had hoped for. While much of what the UN does can have important impacts, this shows that what can be done at the national level depends a lot on national priorities and politics. How politicians are afraid of negative impacts for the local voting populations. And then, of course, it has also to do with the commitment of the international donors to actually put in money to say, "Yes, we will not only give you minor funds to warehouse refugees but we will partner with you to empower them and your populations." Part of the agreement with Jordan that I mentioned was a pact with the EU. The EU said, "If refugees are employed you can export garments and other goods from export-oriented zones to us duty free." The idea was to use trade and the increase in production in the Jordanian garment sector as a way to increase employment opportunities for refugees. A great idea.
But, you probably need to do more to help Jordanian products to be competitive on the EU market. There's also a time lag. Even if you open up the market right away, these products may not satisfy the EU standards for garments. So, there are many things that the partners need to do to support these endeavors and to really make sure that local leaders are not afraid that if they open the labor market, if they open chances for local integration, that in two years, donors will pull out. And then, they will get stuck with the additional population without the support financial community. So, that's where the UN can help a lot. But, without real commitments from large donor countries or any countries to resettle and share the responsibility for refugees, there's only that much the UN can do.
Thank you so much for your time.
Image via Hannah Wallace Bowman (above).
interviews
An Interview with Jee Mee Kim, Principal at HR&A Advisors
by Jee Mee Kim
May 17, 2018
This interview with Jee Mee Kim, principal at HR&A Advisors, was conducted and condensed by frank news.
What is the role of an advisory firm in relation to government agencies, city planning, and architects? How do you fall in to that mix?
Our work is really focused on helping cities. Either at the level of a private developer or a land owner trying to figure out what they should build on their site or helping the mayor of the city determine how to create an economic revitalization strategy that will bring jobs and reinvigorate downtowns and position them for the next economy. So, it really varies.
We also have a lot of open space and transit projects. For open space projects in particular, we help clients think through creating a design that is respectful of the urban context and supports their vision and goals? We help clients think of ways to pay for upfront costs of construction and ongoing maintenance, often through real estate as a vehicle for funding.
We also help clients think through the political and community buy-in needed for a project of scale and impact . It boils down to bringing all of those different pieces and perspectives together to create and help shepherd a project along that both satisfies the public goals as well as private interest.
Which projects do you see as a passion?
I've been exposed to a lot of places that are not big cities. I've been a planner for almost 20 years and spent most of my time in New York. Recently I started to get projects in the Midwest. I've been spending a lot of time in Indiana which is having a bit of an economic boom. For example, Indianapolis is really thriving: Salesforce just located its second headquarters there.
There are so many small cities across the US that are thriving and doing really innovation, interesting things. And some of these cities are former Rust Belt cities that are reinventing themselves. As New Yorkers, big city dwellers, we tend to think we’re the center of the universe
These places that are in the middle of cornfields that have traditionally been very auto-centric. Maybe have a small Main Street, but these places are largely single detached homes with the yard and garage.
If they want to entice young people, professionals, and if they want to grow their population, they need to create places that are like the neighborhoods of New York.
As a consultant, I have the privilege of being able to travel across the country and see so many different types of projects. I love being able to share what I see and learn with my clients all over the country and even now in Saudi Arabia.
We keep hearing that young, expanding families are choosing to move out of New York to other cities, rather than to the suburbs.
I'm totally seeing that. I think places like Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, are realizing they have competitive edge because the quality of life is still pretty good. But the housing costs and the cost of living are so much lower.
They're trying to figure out, how do we create these amenitized communities that can really attract people who once lived in New York or Chicago or LA, and entice them to come to their cities? They're really making investments in their downtowns, parks, and waterfronts. That's really cool.
How do you see this playing out as a planner? What are your biggest concerns and hopes?
I think there's a running debate. I was just at a planning conference, and I was on a couple of panels talking about the future with autonomous vehicles.
The other scenario is that because you have broader and cheaper accessibility to AV technology, people will want to live even further out. We'll see greater sprawl. We'll see more cars and more driving.
Obviously, it's unknown right now. What I think is really positive is the move towards creating these downtowns. It's really heartening because a lot of these places, especially the Main Streets that we're looking at, those Main Street retailers have suffered over the past 30 years. The discussion you hear a lot is there's still a future for brick and mortar retail because people want to go to a store where they can have an experience. I think of Warby Parker, that revolutionized how you purchase glasses. I was in a Warby Parker and I said, "there's never a crowd like this at a LensCrafters."
I think that's what cities are embracing now, that they have assets they can take advantage of. I think on the optimistic side, with more people living in cities instead of living in these big sprawling suburbs, where you're driving everywhere, land value is tied to walkability. There are clear statistics that having access to transit, parks, and bikeable, pedestrian friendly streets, actually increases property values. It's this virtual cycle of what makes a great place.
That's heartening.
But the suburban revolution, is it really over? No, the suburbs are actually trying to figure out what to do now. How do we become relevant again?
What are your thoughts on loneliness? When you're driving your car alone there's loneliness, highways, loneliness, shopping online, loneliness. We're craving human interaction, and I wonder if this psychology factors into your work.
How people are experiencing technology is changing, social norms are changing, and so many people work from home. They work these off hours, and somebody could have made the case, well, we won't need offices anymore. But WeWork spaces and coworking spaces are so popular. People are willing to pay money to be surrounded by other people, even if they have nothing to do with the business that they're in. Maybe it is the loneliness. Being at home and working all day in your pajamas isn't all that interesting.
Secondly, people still thrive on the social interaction and the bumping into each other and sharing ideas and this notion of the agglomeration. There's a reason why institutions and hospitals are clustered together. Because of that bumping into each other.
As planners we always think about those spaces. There's a reason why public plazas are so popular. There's a reason why people are craving sidewalks, and bike lanes, and nice parks.
It's intrinsic to the human condition. Cars and the highway revolution took some of that away. There's still a place for it, I'm not going talk about it as someone who wants that one-acre lot with a yard. We should still provide options. I think if we can create better cities, it's going go a long way for everyone.
You're creating more vehicle miles, more travel - there's just more of an impact. Whereas you add a 10-story, 20-story tower in Manhattan, most of those people are going take transit or walk or bike.
In a past job, I worked on the Barclays Center Arena. People were freaking out. I worked on the transportation side and said, "well, you're putting an arena up. It's like Madison Square Garden on top of one of the best served transit hubs in the city." It's probably unprecedented to have an arena so well-served by transit. Would you rather have it here, over in some less dense location, where you're going have to create all this economic activity? We can guarantee a lot of people who come are not going to come by car.
Where does community come into that?
Well, that's the thing about planners, and this is where we can get more on the fuzzy side because so much of the work we do has to do with community engagement. In some cases, it's not just about notifying people that some project is happening. I would say 80% of the projects I do, there is some form of robust community engagement where you're getting people's feedback. I think the multidisciplinary folks I work with, generally are very attuned to recognizing the history of the community and recognizing the different tensions and dynamics of a place. What you're getting at is how do you deal when a neighborhood changes? When a neighborhood increases in value? Are you displacing people? What happens to the folks who can no longer afford to live there?
We've been spending more time in recent years, really thinking about how you do inclusive development and inclusive planning. How do you create more opportunities for affordable housing? How do you mitigate the impacts of just creating a place and only thinking about space? You have to think about the people. That is part and parcel of all of the projects we work on. How do you make sure that the economic and social benefits of a new investment, of a new project, of a new building, don't just serve one group? Especially in many communities, you have these historical neighborhoods that have always been underserved. How do you make sure those benefits occur to those folks?
What's one piece of technology you're really excited about that you think it going have a big impact on city planning?
I've learned a lot about autonomous vehicles recently. I think transportation has informed the way our cities look, has informed the way our communities look. I think we take so much transportation related stuff for granted.
The way we move is so important. New York is such an exciting place because it's easy to get from point A to B, barring New York City traffic issues. With new transportation coming online, it's going to change the way our places look. It's going to change behaviors. It's going to change economy. There's a lot of talk about what happens when trucks become autonomous? What happens to all those truck drivers? It has this ripple effect, and I don't think we really figured that out.
How did you come to this profession? What's your background?
Some people are fascinated with their cities as children, that's what they do. I always liked to draw. I went to school, and I got a BFA in Painting. I painted landscapes. I loved that. And then I got an American Studies degree at the same time, and I did a lot of research on immigration and cities. And then, when I was an undergrad, I got tired of naval gazing. That's what I called it. I got tired of being an artist. I became really active doing community organizing work, mostly in New York's Chinatown, doing tenant organizing, vendor organizing, youth development.
As I was working on a volunteer basis and having other jobs, I thought I should go to planning school because that's going make me be a better organizer. I felt like there were certain things we wanted from the city, but I didn't understand how you get to the actual implementation. When I went to planning school, I was set in my ways. I'm going to be in the nonprofit grassroots sector forever, and I graduated and I needed a job. And there was a small company called Sam Schwartz Engineering, and I thought I would stay there for a year because I needed work.
They had a marketing position. I didn't know anything about the business of consulting. I didn't know what marking did. I didn't know what engineers did. I just took the job. And then about 14 years later, I decided to leave.
I did all sorts of work from doing land use approvals in the city, environmental review, transportation planning projects, to building up a great network of people around me. And then I came to HR&A. A firm I worked with a lot in the past. I was always fascinated by economic development and real estate, and more recently on issues of resilience and dealing with the impact of climate change. So, I ended up here. It's just an interesting career, because you really do get to do so many different things, meet so many different people, and go to so many different communities.
As a consultant, I would say consulting is not for everyone. It can be a little crazy, and also, it's really a business, right? There are some down cycles that you have to muddle through, but then there's also intense moments where you get 10 jobs at once. I find it exciting because I don't think I could work on the same project for four years. A lot of learning, and I really like that.