CFOA International Development and Humanitarian Aid Conference
Manchester, 29-30 October 2008
Speech by Keith Whitmore, Chair of the Institutional Committee, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Council of Europe
Mr Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great honour for me to address this Conference in my capacity as Chair of the Institutional Committee and leader of the UK delegation to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.
For those who do not know the organisation which I represent today, and to avoid the misunderstanding: the Council of Europe is the pan-European organisation of 47 European countries (not to be mixed up with the European Union of 27 countries). Founded in 1949, the Council of Europe seeks to develop throughout Europe common and democratic principles based on the European Convention on Human Rights and other reference texts on the protection of individuals.
Within this organization, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, a representative body of more than 200,000 territorial communities of Europe, provides a forum where local and regional elected representatives can discuss common problems, pool their experience and express their views to governments; it advises the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on all aspects of local and regional policy and co-operates closely with national and international organisations representing local and regional government.
Furthermore, the Congress prepares regular country-by-country reports on the state of local and regional democracy in all the Council’s member states, and monitors, in particular, how the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government are being implemented.
Thus, the work of the Congress is aimed at strengthening local and regional democracy and, in particular, improving governance at local and regional level, of which management of natural and technological disasters and their consequences is an extremely important component. Of course, local governance involves all aspects of community life, including also road safety, for example, or conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction, all of which are themes of today’s Conference. Our experience on the ground shows that the best results in tackling all these issues are always achieved through the multiplication and concertation of efforts within networks and partnerships with all possible actors – municipalities, regions, central authorities, private sector, and civil society. At the municipal level especially, the Congress is promoting such partnerships through a new political orientation of action at national and even international level, known as City Diplomacy.
In my speech, I would like to touch upon some these aspects.
But first, let me expound a bit on the role and usefulness of local partnerships in whatever action we take – to prevent emergency situations or deal with their consequences, to improve urban security or road safety, or to implement confidence-building measures and restore trust between communities torn by the conflict. The role of partnerships in general is clear: they help to coordinate efforts, to redistribute tasks and responsibilities using comparative advantages of each service involved, and thus make our action more swift and efficient.
An added value of local partnerships is the first-hand experience of local actors, their knowledge of the ground and their proximity to local populations. To boot, local and regional elected representatives bear legitimacy of popular vote, which makes them the first line of response in the decision-making, often at a time when a quick decision saves lives. Indeed, it is from local elected representatives that communities expect immediate action in the face of emergencies, and it is them whom constituents hold responsible in the first place for inefficient or lacking reaction.
In the Congress, it is our argument that this particular place of local and regional authorities necessitates their close involvement in all stages of planning and preparation, their full access to information, and consultation with them on all decisions concerning local communities. This, in turn, underpins their pivotal role in local partnerships with other stakeholders – emergency services, fire and police forces, health and social workers, civil society or private sector.
In this spirit, the Congress has launched an initiative, for example, of creating ‘triangle’ partnerships “municipal authorities – police – civil society” for improving urban security, and is currently examining the efficiency of such approach based on case studies within its Committee on Social Cohesion. The importance here lies in the sharing of information, agreeing on awareness-raising, preventive or punitive measures and taking action based on this agreement, in the spirit of shared responsibility. The same can be applied, for example, to road safety, two major components of which – drivers’ and pedestrians’ behaviour and the quality of infrastructure (including the quality of road networks, road markings and signage, speed limit zones, etc.) can be influenced by local decisions and tackled through local partnerships.
Local authorities and non-governmental organizations can mount awareness-raising action to change irresponsible behaviour, for example, or encourage such initiatives as “designated driver” or “we’ll-drive-you-home”, whereas the police can provide better explanations on their legal action and sanctions in case of infraction. Needless to say, decisions on speed limit zones, road markings and signage, introduction of high-tech technologies of traffic control, as well as the quality of road cover in most cases rest squarely on the shoulders of local authorities. Another important aspect is of course public transport networks, the availability, accessibility and use of which is closely linked with road safety issues and which is also, in most cases, within local competences.
Local partnerships and the role of local authorities are also crucial in the prevention of conflict situations and post-conflict reconstruction. The Congress has gained a wealth of experience in this domain from its activities in South-East Europe after the Balkan wars which we are now trying to apply to South Caucasus and, more broadly, to the Black Sea Basin.
Our first reaction when the guns in the Balkans went silent was to set up local democracy agencies, LDAs, which would serve as a focal point for involving local communities in concrete projects on the ground. These agencies, supported by national governments and based on partnerships between local elected representatives and their staff, community leaders, law enforcement bodies, peace-keeping forces – in places where it applied – and simple citizens, representatives of communities often doing volunteer work, proved so successful that their number has grown over the years to twelve in the former Yugoslavia and Albania; they have created their own Association of Local Democracy Agencies, ALDA, and expanded their activities into South Caucasus by opening an LDA in Kutaisi, Georgia. As we all understand, we do need more such initiatives in South Caucasus, as the recent conflict in that region has shown with a vengeance.
Generally speaking, we strongly believe that building bridges between local communities, between municipalities and regions is the best way of preventing conflict. Cooperation for development offers a sound and lucrative alternative to strife, and regional autonomy a counterbalance to separatism. It is true: when people experience peace and stability, when they have development opportunities leading to prosperity, when they are busy bringing in improvements, they have not time for hatred and hostility.
Of course, this cooperation is only successful when its results are tangibly felt in our communities, which is why the most pragmatic way to success is fostering such cooperation at municipal and regional level. With this in mind, the Congress launched a Euroregion of a new type around the Adriatic Sea, which brought together cities and regions from both EU and non-EU countries. The Adriatic Euroregion, with the Adriatic Council as its governing body, became operational in 2006. Just one month ago, on 26 September, we completed the creation of another Euroregion based on the same model and covering the Black Sea Basin, including South Caucasus – the Black Sea Euroregion. This, if you wish, is the practical contribution of the Congress to conflict prevention.
As for regional autonomy which I have just mentioned, we can boast a successful example of Gagauzia in the Republic of Moldova, also in the Black Sea Basin, where dispute was settled when this territory received broad autonomous status negotiated with the help of our Congress. We believe that regional autonomy options have not been exhausted in cases of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the two territorial disputes which were left unattended for too long and exploded into an armed confrontation this summer. Here, too, as is always the case, post-conflict reconstruction begins with rebuilding communities – restoring their infrastructures and public services, ensuring their security, providing for the safe return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes. Local authorities are the first to deal with these issues, but they cannot respond to these challenges alone – which brings us back to the importance of local partnerships – and, I would add, the support of national governments and international networks.
At the same time, however, the potential of large municipalities for acting as major players on the national and even international scene has been growing over the years; in more and more countries, economies of large cities underpin national economic development, and city authorities are becoming the largest employers, service providers, holders of public funds and investment recipients. They are increasingly realising this potential through what we call City Diplomacy in the field of peace-making, cooperation for development and post-conflict reconstruction, usually through municipal networks.
I could mention such networks as Cities for Peace, Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East known as MAP, Cities for Human Rights, Cities for Children, or Cities for Local Integration Policy known as CLIP. The Congress is participating in most of them, helping to channel this potential into specific action which can take various forms – joint cooperation initiatives for the benefit of communities affected by conflict or disasters, concrete projects on the ground, investment programmes, etc.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
All this shows that the role of local authorities – and, to be more precise, the role of cooperation between local authorities, cooperation between communities, the role of networks and partnerships – is becoming more and more substantial in conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction. However, we are lucky to have fewer armed conflicts these days, whereas the risks of natural or technological disasters, which often strike unexpectedly, remain high and even higher today as we are facing the consequences of climate change. This is why I would like to speak also about the specific role of local authorities in emergency situations, and in particular in disaster management.
Let me ask you: What do an earthquake, a flood, an oil spill and a nuclear accident have in common? The answer is that it is the local and regional communities which are most directly affected by them, and its is local and regional authorities which are in the front line when it comes to coping with their immediate consequences.
Management of the consequences of natural and technological disasters is an issue which has been on the agenda of the Congress for years. Of course, management of large-scale disasters, whether man-made or natural in origin – or both, as in the case of climate change – may well be the responsibility of the national authorities, but, as I have already mentioned, it is from local and regional elected representatives that our citizens expect the initial response, and the seriousness of the human and material consequences of disasters depends on their preparedness and that of local and regional authorities.
It is for this reason that, in our thinking and proposals on improving governance at local and regional level, and on good governance in general, which is currently a major item on our political agenda, a great deal of attention is focused on the response capability of local and regional authorities to natural and technological risks. Because during and in the wake of disasters, this capability, concealed behind the dry figures, the administrative instructions and the bureaucratic jargon, is expressed in terms of the most precious asset – human life.
It is for the local and regional authorities, as those primarily responsible for spatial management and land use, planning and urban and rural development – which necessarily involves the building and siting of structures likely to be affected by disasters – but also as the main providers of public services, to incorporate prevention, adaptation and mitigation measures into their activities.
Looking at the question in concrete terms, I would now like to ask you what these things have in common: a ban on setting up campsites in areas prone to flooding, a ban on high-rise buildings in earthquake zones and the alerting of emergency services in anticipation of a storm? The answer is obvious: lives saved.
Of course, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, storms and other phenomena often referred to as natural disasters have been around since the dawn of time. But nowadays, the risks are heightened as a result of global warming and dependence on technology and dense transport networks, allied to the close proximity of some industrial sites to residential areas. As a result, the number of potential victims is enormous.
The damage and loss these disasters cause to communities, businesses, commerce, housing, the cultural heritage, transport, communications and the environment are considerable and may threaten the very survival of the affected communities.
These disasters can also have appalling consequences for the environment: an accumulation of toxic substances in the food chain, the wiping out of tons of fish, plankton, etc., adverse effects on natural habitats, lasting contamination of soil, sediments and underground water and the destruction of self-purification capacity.
The local authorities which suffer the immediate consequences must be able to act swiftly. The action they take is vital in order to understand and respond to these phenomena and take protective measures. Concerned at the frequency and scale of the natural disasters and major hazards faced by local authorities, the Congress wished to suggest some very practical ways of responding to these situations.
Drawing on the experience acquired in some countries and by some communities, the Congress proposed, in 2005, a handbook detailing 40 practical measures to be implemented with a view to improving the way in which local authorities discharge their responsibilities. These measures, which are still topical today, relate to the local authorities’ role in managing the consequences of disasters, suggested actions in the face and wake of natural risks – in other words, before, during and after the event – and a shared approach at all levels of governance.
This shared approach is based on the premise that local and regional authorities obviously cannot face up to natural risks alone. The speed and effectiveness of their response is closely linked to co-ordination of the efforts of all levels of governance, which presupposes the rapid exchange of all relevant information and participation of the local and regional authorities in consultations and decision-making at all stages of disaster preparation and management.
This is exactly the main thrust of the measures proposed by the Congress – direct involvement of the local and regional authorities in all aspects of planning and preparing a co-ordinated response to natural risks, consultation with them on spatial management issues in cases where the decision rests with the national level, and sharing with them of all information concerning the possible risks and their prevention.
In its resolution and recommendation on local authorities facing emergencies, also fo 2005, the Congress called for wide dissemination of this handbook and for the development of a “risk culture” to help citizens to cope better with disasters. The Congress also asked the governments of the Council of Europe member states to set up programmes to promote greater public awareness, thus contributing to the development of this “risk culture”, and training programmes for local and regional elected representatives in management of emergency situations. Lastly, we stressed the need for a multidisciplinary approach to co-ordination of all the services called upon at the different stages.
I think that one of the best examples to date of this co-ordination and of an excellent response capability is still the evacuation of people in New York on 11 September 2001, which was unprecedented in peacetime, and the securing of a large public area, which involved national (federal), regional (State of New York) and municipal agencies. A few years later, another example, that of New Orleans, served as a reminder that a good level of preparedness and co-ordination is a constant imperative where major risks are concerned.
Another aspect playing an increasing part in the governance of natural risks is the importance of international co-ordination of our action, international networks for sharing information and experience, and solidarity in the face of disasters which, increasingly, spill over national borders – but also in the face of large-scale disasters confined to a single country. International involvement has been crucial in a number of major floods, as in the Danube basin, or earthquakes, such as those in Armenia or here in Turkey. Another example, the Chernobyl nuclear accident, whose effects were felt throughout virtually the whole of Europe, continues to haunt us to this day.
In 2006, the International Conference to mark the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl launched the Slavutych Appeal, proposed by the Congress, which laid down five basic principles to serve as guidelines for local and regional authorities in areas relating to nuclear safety: the central role of governments, the essential role of local and regional authorities, neighbourhood solidarity, transparency and information, and involvement and consultation of the populations concerned. We are convinced that the application of these principles is an important element in the new governance of risks, which is the theme of this workshop.
The importance of the international dimension of our risk management action is also linked to developments in the nature of those risks, influenced by climate change. Climate change is no longer a distant threat, but a very real phenomenon which has implications for our environment and our social and economic well-being. This phenomenon, climate change, requires – no, demands – resolute public action to strengthen the adaptive capacity of local and regional authorities, ensure the protection of people, property and resources, and, generally, reduce vulnerability to the consequences of meteorological hazards.
To this end, the Congress adopted in March this year a resolution and a recommendation calling for the development of climate strategies which put the emphasis on risk assessment and adaptation at all levels of governance, and which must be combined with mitigation policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Adaptation being a progressive approach that seeks to anticipate future change, these strategies must be based on assessments of vulnerability to identify risk-prone areas and sectors and adopt a cross-sectoral rather than a sector-based approach. Furthermore, because European regions will be affected differently by climate change, incentives and burden-sharing mechanisms will need to be introduced to support the adaptation challenge. Lastly, given the proven link between human activity and climate change and the inherent uncertainty of climate change scenarios, awareness-raising to improve citizens’ understanding of what is at stake is crucial to successful adaptation towards climate-proof cities and regions.
In this context, we wish to highlight the stimulating and co-ordinating role played by local and regional authorities in local and regional dynamics, in spatial planning and development, and in the promotion of community awareness and involvement – the role I mentioned at the beginning of my statement, which is crucial to the governance and management of major risks, and which must be recognised as such by all the protagonists in this field.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
These are the key components of our approach to the new governance of natural and industrial risks, a governance which cannot be effective unless all players – international, national, local and regional, economic, non-governmental – combine their efforts to improve the well-being and quality of life of our communities, including through better governance that is not only citizen-oriented, but citizen-centred.
Ensuring the safety of citizens is quite clearly a key element in the development of local and regional authorities, and hence of our mandate as local and regional elected representatives. It is precisely that safety which is jeopardised by natural and industrial disasters, and that is why the governance of major risks and management of their consequences remain central to our concerns. Because, at the end of the day, our prevention and response capacity saves lives.
Thank you.