Participative Urban Planning: A Challenge in Monterrey s Metropolitan Area

Participative Urban Planning: A Challenge in Monterrey s Metropolitan Area By: Lorena Anaya González 1 Introduction The trend towards sustainable development and global competition has led to the emergence of new trends in population distribution and the expansion and integration of cities. In the metropolization process within the countries, Metropolitan Areas have played an important role related to the urban, economic, social and technological development of regions, because they represent a great opportunity to spread economic and social development in the area beyond its own boundaries. The complex metropolitan dynamic requires the establishment of a Strategic Plan that sets the course of the region and leads to shape the common future with specific strategies and programs that involve the different urban actors, through participative planning. Such is the case of urban development in Mexico, which since 1940 has faced some challenges influenced by this global dynamic, where cities and regions play an essential role. This dynamic has led to the economic and demographic profile transformation of the country into predominantly metropolitan, with its public policy implications for the federal, state and municipal levels. Nowadays in Mexico there are 56 Metropolitan Areas which involve 345 municipalities around the country, concentrate 56 per cent of the national population, 79 per cent of the urban population and generate 75 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 1 Full time Ph. D. student at the Public Policy Program in the Escuela de Graduados en Administración Pública y Política Pública (EGAP) within the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) Campus Monterrey. Her e-mail is: lorena.anaya@itesm.mx. - 1 -

The urban planning activities within the MMA started in the twenties. Since then, different urban planning exercises have been done; nevertheless they have not represented a City Project that involves all the actors and considers all the aspects needed to compete in the global context. This paper synthesizes and extends the results of the study of the Institutional Mechanisms for Participative Urban Planning in the Monterrey s Metropolitan Area (MMA). The purpose of the study is to identify if the Institutional Mechanisms for Participative Urban Planning of the MMA are just working as a communication channel, and if so, what must be done to propitiate that they really impact the public policy decision-making. The paper is organized in five sections. The following section provides a brief overview of the metropolization process in Mexico. The second section provides a general description of the MMA. The next section summarizes the Metropolitan Urban Plans developed in the MMA. The forth section provides a detailed analysis of the Institutional Mechanisms for Participative Urban Planning in the MMA. The final section outlines conclusions and public policy implications. Overview of the Metropolization Process in Mexico Mexico s metropolization process increasingly takes greater importance. The metropolization process in México started in 1940 with the conurbation between Delegation Miguel Hidalgo within the Distrito Federal and the municipality of Naucalpan in Estado de México, due to the construction of Ciudad Satelite (SEDESOL- CONAPO-INEGI: 2007, 09). - 2 -

Since this year the physical expansion of different cities in Mexico, within the territory of two or more states or municipalities, has led to the creation and growth of the Metropolitan Areas; which have played a crucial role in the urbanization process of the country. In the last thirty years different delimitations of the Metropolitan Areas had been established in Mexico. The first one was published in 1976 due to Unikel s analysis; the last delimitation was developed by the works of the Interinstitutional Group conformed by the Social Development Secretariat (Secretaria de Desarrollo Social) (SEDESOL), the Population National Council (Consejo Nacional de Población) (CONAPO), and the National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática) (INEGI). In their definition, the Interinstitutional Group considers three fundamental aspects: size, conurbation and functional integration. The size is measured by number of inhabitants; conurbation refers to the physical union of locations between two or more municipalities; and functional integration is related to the displacements of the occupied population among the municipality in which they live and the one in which they work. Mexico s urban development has faced some challenges influenced by this global dynamic, where cities and regions play an essential role. This dynamic has led to the economic and demographic profile transformation of the country into predominantly metropolitan, with its public policy implications for the federal, state and mainly to the municipal levels. Public policies focused in the satisfaction of the metropolitan citizens growing demand related to public goods as infrastructure and basic services; which implicitly involve more resources that must be distributed to cover the supply of these important goods. - 3 -

Nowadays in Mexico there are 56 Metropolitan Areas which involve 345 municipalities around the country, concentrate 56 per cent of the national population, 79 per cent of the urban population and generate 75 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By population, the main Metropolitan Areas (MA) which have more than one million inhabitants are: Valle de México MA, Guadalajara MA, Monterrey MA, Puebla- Tlaxcala MA, Toluca MA, Tijuana MA, Leon MA, Juarez MA and La Laguna (Coahuila-Durango) MA. Figure 1. Mexico s Metropolitan Areas Source: SEDESOL-CONAPO-INEGI (2007). - 4 -

Profile of the Monterrey s Metropolitan Area MMA is located in the northeast region of Mexico which is formed by Nuevo Leon, Coahuila and Tamaulipas States. By population, MMA is the biggest MA in the region and its hinterland is conformed by: Saltillo MA, Monclova-Frontera MA, Reynosa-Rio Bravo MA, Piedras Negras MA, Matamoros MA, La Laguna MA, Tampico MA and Nuevo Laredo MA. Figure 2. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area and its Hinterland Monterrey MA Saltillo MA Monclova Frontera MA Reynosa Río Bravo MA Piedras Negras MA Matamoros MA La Laguna MA Tampico MA Nuevo Laredo MA Source: By author. - 5 -

Today, the MMA is integrated by twelve municipalities: Apodaca, Cadereyta Jiménez, García, San Pedro Garza García, General Escobedo, Guadalupe, Juárez, Monterrey, Salinas Victoria, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Catarina y Santiago. In 2005 the MMA concentrated approximately 3.7 million inhabitants, what ranks this MA as the third in size just after Valle de Mexico (Mexico City-Hidalgo-Mexico) and Guadalajara (SEDESOL-CONAPO-INEGI: 2007). Figure 3. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area Source: By author. - 6 -

The Urban Hierarchy as a distinctive range of the urbanization and economic development helps us with the evaluation of the population distribution by size of cities within the MMA, as well as to understand the way in which the populations, as well as economic, social, political and cultural activities are concentrated. The Urban Hierarchy is described and analyzed by the rate of Urban Primacy 2. The analysis of the Urban Primacy Index shows that by including only de first three municipalities of the MMA, the metropolitan population would be balanced. However with the inclusion of the other nine municipalities the relationship is unbalanced because there are significant differentials in the population of each. Figure 3. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Urban Primacy Index by Municipality (1995-2005) Municipalities 1995 2000 2005 Urban Primacy Index of: Monterrey Guadalupe 1.76 1.66 1.64 02 municipalities S an Nicolás de los Garza 0.98 0.95 0.97 03 municipalities Apodaca 0.82 0.77 0.71 04 municipalities Gral. E s cobedo 0.64 0.66 0.60 05 municipalities S anta Catarina 0.71 0.58 0.53 06 municipalities J uárez 0.56 0.51 0.49 07 municipalities S an Pedro Garza García 0.60 0.55 0.47 08 municipalities Cadereyta J iménez 0.58 0.53 0.46 09 municipalities García 0.55 0.50 0.45 10 municipalities S antiago 0.55 0.50 0.44 11 municipalities S alinas Victoria 0.54 0.49 0.44 12 municipalities Source: By author. 2 The Urban Primacy Index (UPI) helps to identify the degree of disproportion between the biggest city and those that followed it in size within a region. It is determined by dividing the population of the largest city between the population of the city or cities that follow it in size. If the UPI is nearby 1 the metropolitan population would be balanced (Unikel: 1976). - 7 -

In relation to the population of the MMA, in the period 1995-2005 there was an average annual population growth of 1.86%. Stand out the municipalities of Juarez and Garcia which present the highest population growth rate in the same period with 9.71 and 7.32 percent, respectively. On the other hand with a decline in the population rate is the municipality of San Nicolas de los Garza which had a decrease of 0.23% in that period. Figure 4. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Population, Population Growth Rate and Population Density (1995-2005) Municipality Population 1995 Population 2000 Population 2005 Growth Rate (1995-2000) Growth Rate (2000-2005) Growth Rate (1995-2005) Apodaca 219,153 283,497 418,784 5.12 7.71 6.26 Cadereyta Jiménez 62,440 75,059 73,746 3.67-0.35 1.66 García 23,981 28,974 51,658 3.77 11.25 7.32 Gral. Escobedo 176,869 233,457 299,364 5.52 4.95 5.14 Guadalupe 618,933 670,162 691,931 1.59 0.64 1.11 Juárez 50,009 66,497 144,380 5.66 14.77 9.71 Monterrey 1,088,143 1,110,997 1,133,814 0.42 0.41 0.41 Salinas Victoria 15,925 19,024 27,848 3.55 7.53 5.45 San Nicolás de los Garza 487,924 496,878 476,761 0.36-0.83-0.23 San Pedro Garza García 120,913 125,978 122,009 0.82-0.64 0.09 Santa Catarina 202,156 227,026 259,896 2.32 2.70 2.50 Santiago 34,187 36,812 37,886 1.48 0.58 1.03 Monterrey's Metropolitan Area Municipality 3,100,633 3,374,361 3,738,077 1.69 2.05 1.86 Apodaca 183.50 1,194 1,545 2,282 Cadereyta Jiménez 1,004.40 62 75 73 García 853.20 28 34 61 Gral. Escobedo 191.00 926 1,222 1,567 Guadalupe 151.30 4,091 4,429 4,573 Juárez 277.80 180 239 520 Monterrey 451.30 2,411 2,462 2,512 Salinas Victoria 1,334.20 12 14 21 San Nicolás de los Garza 86.80 5,621 5,724 5,493 San Pedro Garza García 69.40 1,742 1,815 1,758 Santa Catarina 984.50 205 231 264 Santiago 763.80 45 48 50 Monterrey s Metropolitan Area Surface (km 2 ) Population Density 1995 Population Density 2000 Population Density 2005 6,351.20 488 531 589 Source: By author with information of the Censo de Población y Vivienda 1995, 2000 and the Conteo de Población 2005. - 8 -

After analyzing the population density of the MMA it can be mentioned that in the period 1995-2005 it was of 589 inhabitants per square kilometer, where San Nicolas de los Garza stands out as one with the highest population density and Salinas Victoria as the one with the lowest density in the MA. Furthermore, above the metropolitan average were the municipalities of Guadalupe, Monterrey, Apodaca, San Pedro Garza Garcia and Escobedo. On the other hand, the study of the population pyramid establishes that most of the men and women of the metropolitan area are concentrated in the range of 30 to 59 years. It should be noted that less than five percent of the population in the MMA is greater than 60 years. Figure 5. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Population Pyramid (2005) 60->60 30-59 15-29 5-14 0-4 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% M F Source: By author with information from the Conteo de Población (2005). - 9 -

Furthermore, after analyzing other demographic indicators used to measure the demographic dependency 3 and the level of aging it can be established that within the MMA the municipality with the highest demographic dependency is Garcia, which has 64 children between 0 and 14 years and 8 adults over 65 years for every 100 adults in working age. By contrast, the San Pedro Garza Garcia presents the lowest demographic dependency ratio in the MA, having 31children and 15 seniors per 100 adults in working age. Municipality Figure 6. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Demographic Dependency and Aging Index Youth Elderly Demographic Aging Dependency Dependency Dependency Index 2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005 Apodaca 60.9 56.3 5.0 5.1 65.9 61.4 8.2 9.1 Cadereyta Jiménez 46.8 46.3 12.4 14.5 59.2 60.8 26.5 31.4 García 65.4 63.7 9.1 7.5 74.5 71.2 14.0 11.8 General Escobedo 60.5 55.2 5.3 5.9 65.9 61.1 8.8 10.6 Guadalupe 47.0 42.7 9.8 12.2 56.8 54.9 20.9 28.5 Juárez 65.4 62.7 7.1 5.2 72.5 67.9 10.8 8.3 Monterrey 41.5 40.6 14.3 16.6 55.8 57.2 34.5 40.8 Salinas Victoria 56.4 58.8 11.4 11.3 67.8 70.1 20.3 19.2 San Nicolás de los Garza 42.9 35.8 9.8 12.7 52.7 48.6 22.7 35.5 San Pedro Garza García 36.3 30.8 12.6 15.2 49.0 45.9 34.8 49.3 Santa Catarina 52.2 48.2 7.4 8.6 59.6 56.8 14.2 17.9 Santiago 45.7 43.8 16.7 18.8 62.5 62.6 36.6 43.0 Monterrey's Metropolitan Area Source: By author. 46.98 44.73 10.67 11.96 57.65 56.70 22.71 26.75 Nevertheless, when analyzing the Aging Index 4 San Pedro Garza Garcia is the municipality with the biggest index, because it has 49 persons with more than 60 years for every 100 hundred children with less than 15 years. Situation that evidence the population within this municipality are mainly seniors. 3 The dependency can be of three types: youth, elderly or demographic. The first measures the relationship between the population aged 0 to 14 per hundred working-age adults between 15 and 64 years; elderly dependency, is the ratio of adults older than 65 years for every one hundred adults in working age; while the demographic dependence is the sum of the previous two types. 4 The Aging Index measures the elderly population for every one hundred children with less than15 years. - 10 -

Another type of analysis that complements the previous one is related to the resident and employed staff in the municipalities of the MMA. This analysis is useful to identify similarities and differences within the metropolitan municipalities. In the year 2000, the municipality with the highest percentage of residents who work in the same municipality was Cadereyta, followed by the municipalities of Monterrey and Santiago with a percentage greater than 80.5%. In contrary, in Juarez municipality less than the 35% of its resident workforce lives and works there, what evidence the mobility within the metropolitan area. Besides, within the MMA in almost all the municipalities less than 3% of the resident labor force works in other municipalities that are not considered central municipalities 5, excluding Salinas Victoria and Juarez in which this percentage reaches levels equivalent to 8.9 and 3.7%, respectively. Figure 7. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Workforce Resident in the Municipality (2000) Municipalities Works in the municipality (%) Works in central municipalities * (%) Works in other municipalities (%) Apodaca 50.5 47.8 1.7 Cadereyta J iménez 96.3 2.6 1.1 García 67.6 31.0 1.4 General E scobedo 42.9 54.8 2.2 Guadalupe 55.5 43.0 1.6 J uárez 35.8 60.5 3.7 Monterrey 82.6 16.2 1.1 S alinas Victoria 59.4 31.7 8.9 S an Nicolás de los Garza 51.9 46.2 1.9 S an Pedro Garza García 60.1 38.8 1.0 S anta Catarina 53.6 45.2 1.1 S antiago 80.5 16.6 2.9 Source: By author with information of SEDESOL-CONAPO-INEGI (2007). 5 A central municipality refers to municipalities with locations of 50 thousand or more inhabitants with high physical and functional integration with urban municipalities. - 11 -

Metropolitan Urban Plans Developed in the Monterrey s Metropolitan Area In addition to the metropolization process, since the eighties different cities of the world have undertaken strategic planning processes to define its direction. In the twentieth century a strategic plan had to foster economic competitiveness, as well as spatial and social housing. But in the twenty-first century the challenge for the local government is to incorporate two new elements: sustainability and governance (Fernandez Güell: 2006). Today, strategic plans so-called of third generation are distinguished by its mediator character and for its preference for long term projects; being one of its main objectives to facilitate consensus and the commitment of actors (Portas: 1998, quoted in Monclús: 2003). In the specific case of the MMA, the urban planning activities within it started in the twenties, but their institutionalization was achieved until the sixties. The metropolization process was in progress since 1950 with the inclusion of the municipalities of Guadalupe, San Nicolas and San Pedro Garza García to the Metropolitan Area, which in that year concentrated approximately 362 thousand inhabitants (Garza: 2003). It has to be noted that was until 1984 that the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey was recognized as the first legal instrument in the country that recognizes the shared responsibility of the municipalities regarding urban planning (García: 1989). In 1962 the Department of the Regulatory Plan for Monterrey and the Neighboring Municipalities (Departamento del Plan Regulador de Monterrey y Municipios Vecinos) was created, and one year later the First Regulatory Plan for the MMA was done. - 12 -

Five years later, in 1967, the department developed the Master Plan for the Monterrey Sub region (Plan Director de la Subregión Monterrey) which considered a central city, five adjacent peripheral locations and six medium cities in a 25km radius of the core set. Later, in 1983, looking to update the previous plan, the Urban Development Plan for the MMA and its Hinterland (Plan de Desarrollo Urbano del Área Metropolitana de Monterrey y su Área de Influencia) was proposed and not approved, so it was used as a technical document. However it is worth mentioning that some of the proposals regarding to road structure, zoning and location of public facilities were implemented 6. In November 1988, the State Executive decreed the Urban Development Master Plan for the MMA1988-2010 (Plan Director de Desarrollo Urbano del AMM), which analyzes the future requirements in housing, roads, equipment and environment, that s why an important part of the plan focused on the regulation regarding the control, conservation, land use and urban destinations. By then, the MMA was formed by nine municipalities (García Ortega: 1989 & Garza: 2003). Later, in 1995 and 1996, two new planning instruments were developed in Nuevo Leon: a) the Multidimensional Urban Development Plan 1995-2020 (Plan Multidimensional de Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León) (PLAMDU-NL), and b) the Monterrey s Metropolitan Strategic Plan 2020 (Plan Estratégico del Área Metropolitana de Monterrey 2020) (PEAMM). In the PEAMM 2020 four land use alternatives were established: 1) Metropolitan consolidation, 2) Metropolitan expansion, 3) Satellite city, and 4) Metropolis and regional centers. From this it was established that the land use in the MMA was a mixture of the first two alternatives, what meant the continuation of the growth pattern of that time (Garza: 2003). 6 For details about the public infraestructure developed in this years, see: García: 1989, pp. 378-379. - 13 -

In 2007, in order to update the MMA vision, the Regia Metropoli Plan (Plan Regia Metrópoli) was proposed and the Metropolitan Vision: Monterrey 2030, whose approach is purely urban, was established. While these plans were developed at the state level, the realization of partial plans that complement the Master Plan was responsibility of the municipal governments. In 1993, San Pedro Garza Garcia municipality approved the Partial Plan of San Pedro Garza Garcia Urban Development, 1990-2010 (Plan Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano de San Pedro Garza Garcia, 1990-2010) which main objective was to define the secondary land zoning and the rules for its use. Similarly, in1994 the municipality of Monterrey developed the Partial Plan of Monterrey s Urban Development 1994-2010 (Plan Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano de Monterrey, 1994-2010) which tried to deal with the problems related to land use, housing, infrastructure, equipment, environment, roads and transport, urban image and administrative management. The Municipal Urban Development Plan of San Pedro 2000-2020 (Plan de Desarrollo Urbano de Municipal de San Pedro Garza Garcia 2000-2020) which updated and improved the previous plan was published in the year 2000. But this time the plan does not consider the economic and social structures of the city and was established as a plan for governing the urban space (Garza: 2003). As can be seen different urban planning exercises have been done within the MMA; nevertheless at the beginning there were no public consultations or commissions for public participation so they have not considered all the actors involved. Today there are institutional mechanisms to propitiate the participative urban planning however it must be evaluated if these instruments are really fulfilling their role. - 14 -

Institutional Mechanisms that Encourage the Participative Urban Planning in the Monterrey s Metropolitan Area The efforts related to participatory planning within the MMA started in 1995, with the establishment of the General Regulations for Participative Planning within the San Pedro Municipality. Nowadays, there are Institutional Mechanisms to propitiate participatory planning and encourage the participation of different actors in local politics within the municipalities of the MMA. One third of these municipalities have their own general regulation that promotes social participation; and another third has regulations for participatory planning in the Urban Development Plans. At the federal level, the Planning Act (Ley de Planeación) states the rationale to promote and ensure democratic participation of various social groups through their representatives and authorities, in developing the Plan and the programs referred in this Law. In addition, it notes that their participation aims to express their opinions for the drafting, updating and implementation of plans and programs. Therefore, the organizations representing the civil society, workers, peasants, academic institutions, professional and research bodies must participate as permanent advisory body on issues of democratic planning related to their activity, through popular consultation forums that will be convened for that purpose. At the state level, different Laws are directly linked to social and citizen participation. In the State Constitution (Constitución del Estado de Nuevo León) different articles, which are mentioned on a recurring basis in the regulation, set that the municipalities are empowered to adopt regulations, circulars and administrative arrangements to ensure the participation of citizens and neighbors. - 15 -

Meanwhile, the Organic Law of Public Administration (Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública para el Estado de Nuevo León) states that the Governor of the State may agree the operation of advisory councils, committees, boards or interinstitutional commissions to promote citizen participation in public matters, considering agencies of the Public Administration, individuals and corporations who by their responsibilities and activities should be called 7. And that with the aim of fostering the participation of different groups in public functions and decentralize the tasks of the government, twelve decentralized public agencies 8 for citizen participation must be established. Stands the Planning Agency of Urban Development (Agencia para la Planeación del Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León) which is related to the purpose of this study 9. 7 One of these mechanisms is the Citizen Participation Coordination. To know more about its responsibilities, see: Organic Law of Public Administration (Ley Orgánica de Administración Pública del Estado de Nuevo León), Articles: 30-33. 8 The 12 decentralized public agencies proposed by this Law are: I. Council of Social Development (Consejo de Desarrollo Social); II. Council of Industrial Relations and Productivity (Consejo de Relaciones Laborales y Productividad); III. Strategic Projects Corporation (Corporación de Proyectos Estratégicos de Nuevo León); IV. Agricultural Development Corporation (Corporación para el Desarrollo Agropecuario de Nuevo León); V. Tourism Development Corporation (Corporación para el Desarrollo Turístico de Nuevo León); VI. State Institute of Women (Instituto Estatal de las Mujeres); VII. Housing Institute (Instituto de la Vivienda de Nuevo León); VIII. State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport (Instituto Estatal de Cultura Física y Deporte); IX. State Institute of Youth (Instituto Estatal de la Juventud); X. Planning Agency of Urban Development (Agencia para la Planeación del Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León); XI. Agency for Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (Agencia de Protección al Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales); and, XII. Agency for the Modernization and Rationalization of the Public Transport System (Agencia para la Racionalización y Modernización del Sistema de Transporte Público de Nuevo León). To find out the nature and objectives of each of them, see: Organic Law of Public Administration, Articles: 42 to 53. 9 The Planning Agency of Urban Development is a decentralized public body of citizen participation which aims to: a) identify and coordinate the development, updating and implementing of the Urban Development State Plan, the sectorial plans and the plans for the urban areas; b) design and implement plans and programs for urban development, considering the city planning criteria and sustainable development; c) intervine together and coordinated with the municipalitites in planning and territorial limitation of the metropolitan and regional areas; d) provide technical advice as requested by the municipalities for the formulation of urban development plans that they should elaborate; e) coordinate the regional planning of the state s territory; f) settle agreements for coordination and technical assistance with organizations and agencies that support urban development plans; g) forecast the population distribution and spatial distribution in population centers; h) develop and guide the general policy of human settlements; and i) promote, support and implement programas to meet the needs of urban land and the establishment of land reserves for the proper development of population centers. - 16 -

Furthermore, one of the objectives of the State Planning Act (Ley Estatal de Planeación) is the creation of a Council of State Planning and Assessment 10 (Consejo Estatal de Planeación y Evaluación) to foster citizen participation in the formulation and social, technical and economic evaluation of public policies established and enforced in the plans, programs and projects. It should be noted that one of the objectives of planning is the strengthening of mechanisms for active and responsible participation of society and their incorporation into planning for development 11. Additionally, the Law on Land Management of Human Settlements and Urban Development (Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial de los Asentamientos Humanos y de Desarrollo Urbano) defines planning of urban development as the rational and systematic actions, involving citizen participation, that aim at the transformation of human settlements and population centers, according with the principles established by law such as setting objectives, goals, strategies and priorities, allocate resources, responsibilities, coordinating actions and evaluating results 12. Thereon the Law establishes that the State and the municipalities will promote the establishment of formal social groups involved in the development of urban land use planning of population centers, under any legal form of organization. These groups will have the obligation to receive, organize and submit to the relevant authorities responsible for urban planning, reviews, comments, requests and demands of people who come before them and must meet a specific procedure 13. 10 The Council of State Planning and Assessment is a public body to promote, in coordination with the Executive Board of the State, citizen participation in planning for the development of the state, and for caring, evaluating and disseminating the implementation and social impact of public policies (Article 3, point VIII). 11 To learn more about the Council of State Planning and Assessment, see: State Planning Act, Articles: 13, 33 and 34. 12 To know more about when the social participation in human settlements and urban development should be taken into account, see: Law on Land Management of Human Settlements and Urban Development, Article 32. 13 To distinguish the procedure that must be met, see: Ibid, Articles: 40, 49 and 50. - 17 -

Finally, in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the Coordination of Citizen Participation (Reglamento Interno de la Coordinación de Participación Ciudadana) aiming to promote and incorporate public participation in advisory boards, and then add the power of citizens and their organizations in the programs, projects, services and public affairs done by the State Government, in march this year was established the Coordination of Citizen Participation as an administrative unit under the Executive Office of the Governorship, which seeks to assist the Executive Board in this responsibility. After studying the Federal and State legislation, it is important to deepen the analysis of the Institutional Mechanisms for Participative Urban Planning within the municipalities of the MMA to identify similarities and differences between them 14. The Organic Law of Municipal Public Administration in Nuevo Leon (Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Municipal del Estado de Nuevo León) notes that the City Council will promote among its inhabitants forms of community participation so that they contribute to meeting the goals and participate through labor and solidarity in the neighborhood development, and collective benefit the municipality 15. Also this Law specifies that the Municipal Regulations must encourage community participation in municipal management. 14 Within the municipalities of the MMA, the Citizen Participation Regulations refer in a recurring basis to the following articles of the Organic Law of Municipal Administration in Nuevo Leon: Articles 10, 14; 26, point a) fraction VII and point c) fraction VI; 27, fraction IV; 30, fraction VI; 32, 76, 119,122, 123, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 167 and 168. 15 To know the provisions that the City Council will take into consideration for the consitution, organization and operation of institutions of public participation, see: Ibid, Article 123. - 18 -

The efforts related to participative planning within the MMA started in 1993, with the establishment of the Regulations for Public Participation in the Elaboration of Urban Development Plans within the Apodaca Municipality (Reglamento para la Participación Ciudadana en la Elaboración de los Planes de Desarrollo Urbano del Municipio de Apodaca). Nowadays, within the MMA 4 of the municipalities have a General Approach Regulation 16 related to Citizen Participation; another 4 have a Regulation regarding Citizen Participation in Urban Development Plans; and just one of the twelve entities has a Regulation concerning Social Participation in Public Security issues and a different one a Regulation linked to Education. Municipality Figure 8. Monterrey s Metropolitan Area: Citizen Participation Rules and Regulations General Approach Urban Development Plans Public Security Apodaca Education Cadereyta Jiménez* García General Escobedo Monterrey Metropolitan Area (MMA) Guadalupe* Juárez* Monterrey Salinas Victoria San Nicolás de los Garza San Pedro Garza García Santa Catarina Santiago Source: By author. * The municipalities in gray don t have any rules and regulations regarding citizen participation. 16 This type of Regulation presents an approach that does not sets particularities for a specific area or sector. Nevertheless it might mention Urban Planning within it, as in the cases of San Pedro Garza García (1995) and Santiago (2004). The other municipalities that present a General Approach in their Citizen Participation Regulation are: Garcia (July 2002) and Monterrey (November 2007). - 19 -

The Regulation of Citizen Participation established in the municipality of San Pedro Garza Garcia on November 1995, although is presented as a general approach proposes the Neighbors Boards as a permanent form of citizen participation related to Urban Development Plans. In the same way the Regulation of Santiago s municipality, elaborated in September 2004, mentions the Neighbors Boards for the same purpose. On the other hand, even though the municipalities of Apodaca, General Escobedo, Salinas Victoria and San Nicolas de los Garza have specific Rules and Regulations for Participative Urban Planning neither of them explicitly mention the figures of citizen participation that will be used for that purpose. In their regulations they only specify the procedure through which the community will participate when preparing the Urban Development Plan. Thereon Arzaluz (2004) notes that although the law stipulates the need for a figure of institutionalized participations, the definition is very loose and it is up to each local government to design appropriate figures, so there is no uniformity in this sense. Additionally, points out that these mechanisms do not affect the public policy decisionmaking and just act as a communication channel within the urban actors and the government. Finally it has to be noted that Garcia Ortega (1989) affirms that in the MMA there has been a replacement of the regulatory urbanism mainly done by specialist, by an operating city, product of the pursuit of a balance of power and interests between authorities and social groups with political and economic power. Emphasizing that until November 1988, the actions taken to urban planning had not been supported bye an approved Urban Development Plan. - 20 -

Conclusions and Policy Implications The socioeconomic and political reality within Monterrey s Metropolitan Area is varied. And as things stand today it can be concluded that the institutional mechanisms do not guarantee that institutions work, neither that the urban participatory planning is effective. The problem seems to be that these regulations are mostly seen more as a requirement to fulfill than a real commitment to the citizens. The fact that not all the local governments have issued the regulations for urban public participation is proof of this. Additionally, although there are institutional mechanisms that seek to propitiate the participatory urban planning in the MMA, the lack of specificity and the different instruments used in each municipality more than support it delay its effectiveness. Allowing that interest groups control the urban planning process, what does not guarantee the legitimacy, but only the legality of this process. One first step has been taken; the participative urban planning is in its way. Now it s time to strengthen these institutional mechanisms by specifying common instruments that really encourage the participative urban planning within the MMA and by establishing a common future as a metropolitan area. which is the best figure? what else can be done to promote that the metropolitan municipalities work in a coordinated way? It s an issue that requires more reflection and a challenge that must be faced in a coordinated way for the successful positioning of the MMA as a global metropoli. - 21 -

References Arzaluz Solano, Socorro (2004). Experiencias de Participación Ciudadana en Municipios Metropolitanos del Estado de México y Nuevo León. In: Alicia Ziccardi (coord.) Participación Ciudadana y Políticas Sociales en el Ámbito Local. México: UNAM-INDESOL. Pages: 167-184. Fernández Güell, José Miguel (2006). Planificación Estratégica de Ciudades: Nuevos Instrumentos y Procesos. Colección: Estudios Universitarios de Arquitectura. Editorial Reverté. García Ortega, Roberto (1989). El Plan Director de Desarrollo Urbano del Área Metropolitana de Monterrey: antecedentes, análisis y situación actual. In: Gustavo Garza (compiler). Una Década de Planeación Urbano-Regional en México, 1978-1988. Centro de Estudios Demográficos y de Desarrollo Urbano. México: El Colegio de México. Pages: 373-385. Garza, Gustavo, Pierre Filion and Gary Sands (2003). Políticas Urbanas en Grandes Metrópolis: Detroit, Monterrey y Toronto. Centro de Estudios Demográficos y de Desarrollo Urbano. Programa Interinstitucional de Estudios sobre la Región de América del Norte (PIERAN). México: El Colegio de México. Integrantes del Grupo Interinstitucional para la Delimitación de Zonas Metropolitanas SEDESOL, CONAPO, INEGI (2004). Delimitación de las Zonas Metropolitanas de México. México. ---------- (2007). Delimitación de las Zonas Metropolitanas de México 2005. México. Monclús, Francisco-Javier (2003). El Modelo Barcelona Una fórmula original? De la Reconstrucción a los Proyectos Urbanos Estratégicos (1979-2004). Perspectivas Urbanas. N 3. P. 1-13. Recovered: February 2009. Available in: www.etsav.upc.es/urbpersp Unikel, Luis (1976). El Desarrollo Urbano de México: Diagnóstico e Implicaciones Futuras. México. - 22 -

Laws and Regulations Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. Constitución Política del Estado Libre y Soberano de Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial del Estado. December 16 th, 1917. Last reform published in: Periódico Oficial. May 1 st, 2009. Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. Ley de Planeación. Published in: Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). January 5 th, 1983. Last reform published in the DOF on June 13 th, 2003. Estatuto Interior del Organismo Público Descentralizado de Participación Ciudadana del Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, denominado Corporación de Proyectos Estratégicos de Nuevo León. Issued by the State Executive and Published in: Periódico Oficial del Estado. No. 130. Date: October 12 th, 2004. Ley de Ordenamiento Territorial de los Asentamientos Humanos y de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial del Estado, March 3rd, 1999. Last reform: Decrees #163 of November 7 th and #162 of November 12 th, 2007. Ley Estatal de Planeación. Published in: Periódico Oficial. July 28 th, 2004. Last reform published in: Periódico Oficial # 25. February 20 th, 2009. Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública para el Estado de Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. October 9 th, 2003. Last reform published in: Periódico Oficial. March 2 nd, 2007. Reglamento de Consejos Consultivos Escolares de Participación Ciudadana del Municipio de Santa Catarina, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. March 30 th, 2001. Reglamento Interior de la Coordinación de Participación Ciudadana. Published in: Periódico Oficial. March 13 th, 2009. Reglamento para la Participación Ciudadana en la Elaboración de los Planes de Desarrollo Urbano del Municipio de Apodaca, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. July 2 nd, 1993. - 23 -

Reglamento para la Participación Ciudadana en la Elaboración de los Planes de Desarrollo Urbano del Municipio de General Escobedo, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. May 14 th, 1993. Reglamento para la Participación Ciudadana en la Elaboración de los Planes de Desarrollo Urbano del Municipio de Salinas Victoria, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. July 15 th, 1994. Reglamento para la Participación Ciudadana en la Elaboración de los Planes de Desarrollo Urbano del Municipio de San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. August 9 th, 1993. Reglamento de los Comités de Participación Ciudadana del Municipio de García, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. July 3 rd, 2002. Reglamento de Participación Ciudadana de San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. November 8 th, 1995. Reglamento de Participación Ciudadana del Municipio de Monterrey, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. November 16 th, 2007. Reglamento de Participación Ciudadana del Municipio de Santiago, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. September 20 th, 2004. Reglamento de Participación Ciudadana en Materia de Seguridad Pública en el Municipio de Apodaca, Nuevo León. Published in: Periódico Oficial. June 19 th, 2006. Databases Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). XI Censo de Población y Vivienda 1995. ------------------. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000. ------------------. Conteo de Población 2005. - 24 -