Mary Pattenden,
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
In 1992, world leaders gathered in Brazil at the United Nations Earth
Summit and adopted Agenda 21, a global action plan for sustainable
development. They also called on local authorities in each country to
undertake a consultative process with their residents to establish a
local version of Agenda 21 for their communities.
Since then, the International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives has been working with local governments to develop
methodologies and tools for Local Agenda 21 planning. This paper reviews
the international progress being made and presents some of the lessons
learned from early efforts to implement Local Agenda 21.
Source: http://www.peck.ca/nua/aif/aif03.htm
ICLEI
Mary Pattenden
Director of Development
for the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives
mpattenden@iclei.org
http://www.iclei.org
Introduction
In June 1997, the United Nations held a Special Session of the General
Assembly to evaluate world progress on the implementation of Agenda 21.
When the UN Secretary General, tabled his report to the Special Session,
entitled Overall
Progress Achieved Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), it said: "Some of the most promising
developments have taken place at the level of cities and municipalities,
where local Agenda 21 initiatives have predominated.... Local-level
strategies and plans have proved far more successful than those at the
national level in terms of making a direct impact."
This
recognition of local government achievement is well founded. The Local Agenda 21 Survey that was conducted in 1996 by the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), in conjunction with
the UN Secretariat for the Commission on Sustainable Development,
revealed that in the five years since the Earth Summit more than 1800
local governments in 64 countries had begun implementing Local Agenda 21
planning in their communities. As part of the process, these local
governments are working together with local residents, community
organizations, NGOs, businesses, unions, women, youth, and other
stakeholders to develop and implement action plans for the sustainable
development of their communities. They have been changing the structure
and procedures for local governance along the way.
What is Local
Agenda 21
Agenda
21, which was adopted by 178 countries at the UN Earth
Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, sets out a global action plan for
sustainable development to deal with such areas of concern as poverty;
human health, consumption patterns, demographic dynamics, protection of
the atmosphere, land resource use, deforestation, desertification and
drought, sustainable agriculture, biological diversity, management of
biotechnology; protection of oceans, seas and coastal areas, protection
of freshwater resources, toxic chemicals, hazardous waste, and solid
wastes, sewage and sanitation issues. Agenda 21 states that many of
these issues have their problems and solutions rooted in local
activities and that the participation and cooperation of local
authorities will play a critical role in the fulfillment of its
objectives. Chapter 28 (see Appendix I)
calls on local authorities in each country to undertake a consultative
process with their populations and achieve a consensus on a local
version of Agenda 21 for their communities.
When ICLEI
first launched the Local Agenda 21 Initiative, in 1991, there were few
models of participatory sustainable development planning available.
Today there are dozens of examples of good practices, as well as
guidelines, resource materials, planning models, and tools that local
governments can use to implement the Local Agenda 21 process.
One of the most
comprehensive efforts to develop models for Local Agenda 21 planning is
ICLEI's Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme, which involved 14
cities and towns in 12 countries over a three-year period. In addition,
ICLEI worked on projects with more than 170 local governments in 40
countries to apply the models and evaluate methodologies and tools for
sustainable development planning.
This experience
led to the development of a set of guidelines for Local Agenda 21
planning, that includes:
the
establishment of a multi-sectoral planning body or stakeholder group
consisting of representatives from government, business, NGOs, women,
youth and other constituencies to oversee the implementation of Local
Agenda 21 planning;
the assessment of existing local social, economic and environmental
conditions;
working through a participatory process to identify priorities for
action for both the short-term and long-term;
the development and implementation of a multi-sectoral action plan for
sustainable development with specific targets;
the establishment of monitoring and reporting procedures that hold the
local government, business, and residents accountable to the action
plan.
The application of such sustainable development processes challenges the
traditional structures and procedures of local government. The
requirement for integrated consideration of social, economical and
environmental conditions challenges the municipal organizational
structure of separate, and sometimes competing, disciplinary or
function-based departments. The requirement for public participation and
partnership approaches to problem-solving is inhibited by public-private
sector role distinctions, lack of municipal recognition of informal
communities, and traditional administrative culture. The requirement for
the development and implementation of long-term strategies can be
compromised by their lack of integration with the statutory development
and planning that govern near-term municipal behavior. In short,
effective Local Agenda 21 planning requires institutional reform to
change the key investment and policy decisions of local governments.
Progress on
Implementing Local Agenda 21
The majority of
local governments that are actively involved in implementing guidelines
for Local Agenda 21 have started with the reorganizations of their
municipal structures and procedures. They have been creating new
stakeholder organizations to involve their communities in the
development and implementation of their action plans. They have also
been re-shaping their institutional structures through the creation of
inter-departmental planning units or the establishment of neighbourhood
or village-level government units. For many this has resulted in
profound changes to municipal structure and procedures.
For example, in
1993, the Province of Cajamarca, Peru, began its Local Agenda 21 process
with the decentralization of the provincial government into 76 urban and
rural jurisdictions, each with its own elected Mayor. It then worked
with representatives from all sectors and jurisdictions, over the next
three years, to produce a comprehensive sustainable development plan for
six priority areas: Education; Natural Resources and Agricultural
Production; Production and Employment; Cultural Heritage and Tourism;
Urban Environment; and Women's Issues/Family And Population. Once the
plan was developed and approved by the Provincial Assembly, it was then
returned to local residents for a final endorsement in a referendum.
(For more details see case summary Appendix II)
The
re-organizational effort, in itself, does not produce concrete
improvements in social, economic or environmental conditions. However,
it lays the foundation for a more participatory and transparent process
that works towards the development and implementation of an action plan
supported by the community. It can broaden the resources of the local
government to include the contributions of different sectors in the
community.
Some
municipalities have now completed the development of their Local Agenda
21 action plans and have begun full-scale implementation. These are
mainly communities that had begun establishing the process, or specific
components of it, before 1992.
For example,
Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada, began using a multi-stakeholder approach to
develop the Hamilton Harbor Remedial Action Plan and the Task Force on
Affordable Housing, in the late 1980's. The success of these efforts led
to the establishment of a participatory process for the sustainable
development of the region. The first two-and-one-half years led to the
production of a vision statement for the region, called Vision 2020, and
to the production of 400 goals and recommendations. As the Vision 2020
was being implemented, Hamilton-Wentworth developed community-based
indicators to measure progress. Each year, on Vision 2020 Sustainable
Development Day, the community is presented with a Report Card on the
progress of their sustainable community initiatives. (For more details
see Appendix
III)
As much as
Local Agenda 21 activities depend on the voluntary support of the
different sectors in the community, they are not small efforts or
"amateur" endeavours. Rather, they are serious efforts to
bring about change. In the wealthier countries, some local governments
are putting substantial resources into the implementation process. For
example, in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan a US $149 million budget was
allocated for 52 projects. Initiatives to date include the construction
of 100 "eco-housing" units which make use of rain water and
recycled materials and are highly energy efficient. A Prefecture-wide
system has been established to recover and destroy ozone depleting CFCs.
The Prefecture has set a target to reduce consumption of tropical timber
in public projects by 70% over a three-year period. (For more details
see Appendix IV)
In developing
countries, implementation tends to begin by addressing a few priority
problems. For instance, the Local Agenda 21 effort in Quito, Ecuador is
focusing on the stabilization and protection of the many ravines in that
city's low income South Zone. The Local Agenda 21 effort in Santos,
Brazil is establishing community solid waste management schemes in
selected low income neighborhoods. In Jinja, Uganda the focus is on
three priority areas - solid waste management, sewage and sanitation,
and natural resources.
Common Elements
of Success
Some
communities have been more successful at implementing the process than
others. When ICLEI's Model Communities Program studied some of the
common characteristics of the more effective Local Agenda 21 processes,
they included:
Beginning with
a multi-sectoral partnership which includes all sectors
Identifying resources early in the process
A resource commitment from the municipality to support the process
An explicit strategy for information sharing with local citizens.
Municipal respect for citizens' needs, priorities, and decisions
Involvement of both political leaders and municipal staff in the process
Not beginning the Local Agenda 21 process just before an election
Municipal alignment of policies and programs with the Local Agenda 21
process and action plan
The international Local Agenda 21 Survey revealed another dimension to
the factors that influence the success of local governments in
establishing this sustainable development process. Although the survey
identified Local Agenda 21 activity in 64 countries, more than 80% of
the activity was in the 11 countries with well-established national
campaigns, including Australia, Bolivia, China, Denmark, Finland, Japan,
Korea Republic, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In
several of these countries more than half of local governments were
implementing Local Agenda 21 processes.
For example, in
the United Kingdom in 1993, the five local authority associations set up
a joint Local Agenda 21 Steering Group to direct a campaign that would
ensure a broad-based response by local government to Agenda 21. They
established a multi-sectoral steering committee to direct the campaign,
with representation by local elected officials, environmental NGOs, the
business sector, women's groups, the educational sector, academia, trade
union and the Local Government Management Board - LGMB. The LGMB, which
is the technical agency of the local government associations, was
established as the secretariat for the Campaign. The campaign supported
local governments in their efforts by providing training, guidance,
technical expertise, and opportunities for information exchange. As a
result, more than 70% of local authorities in the UK have taken major
steps towards undertaking Local Agenda 21 activities, on a voluntary
basis. (For more details see Appendix
V)
A typical
national campaign is overseen by a multi-stakeholder steering committee
that is staffed by the national association, with some campaigns having
central government support. The campaign manages the recruitment effort,
prepares guidance materials, organizes a series of training workshops,
operates special projects on activities like indicators development, and
liaises with the central government. In some countries the central
government has regulated mandatory participation by local governments in
the Local Agenda 21 process.
The most active
region for Local Agenda 21 activity is Europe, both for the number of
national campaigns and the number of cities involved. It also has the
most active regional campaign, the European Campaign for Sustainable
Cities & Town, which supports further national association
involvement in Local Agenda 21 and the coordination of region-wide
experience-sharing among participating municipalities and associations.
In the book, From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda
21 in Europe, Local Agenda 21 activity in eight countries was presented
and the most significant characteristics supporting the implementation
of Local Agenda 21 in these countries were identified, including:
central-government initiatives and campaigns to disseminate information
on Local Agenda 21; enough local-government autonomy to render the LA21
idea interesting and possible; and membership in cross-national
environment-and-development alliances, charters. (For more details see Appendix VI)
In addition, at
the international level, UN and donor agency programs have also field
tested participatory action planning frameworks suitable for Local
Agenda 21 implementation, with individual cities or groups of cities.
The programs include the Sustainable Cities Programme of UNCHS, the
Urban Environmental Guidelines Project of the German Agency for
Technical Cooperation (GTZ), and the Rapid Urban Environmental
Assessment Project of the Urban Management Programme.
The number of
cities and towns embracing Local Agenda 21 planning is continuing to
grow as national campaigns in 20 countries broaden their base of
participation, and as regional and international campaigns supporting
Local Agenda 21 practices recruit cities and towns worldwide. In
addition, the APEC economies, have committed to doubling their Local
Agenda 21 cities by the year 2003 in cooperation with ICLEI.
It is estimated
that there are now more than 2000 local governments establishing the
Local Agenda 21 process. At the same time as the numbers of local
governments involved continues to grow, there is an expansion in the
mandate for Local Agenda 21. This process, initially established to
implement Agenda 21 at the local level, has now been recognized as a
mechanism for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda . The Habitat
Agenda is the global plan of action adopted at the United Nations
Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), held in 1996, to deal with
two goals: adequate shelter for all; and sustainable human settlements
development in an urbanizing world.
Overcoming
Obstacles to Success
If local
governments are to be successful in their efforts to implement Local
Agenda 21 processes, they will have to overcome local barriers to
success, such as:
traditional
institutional structures that impede participatory decision-making or
that are too linear for the complexities of sustainable development
planning;
the influence of elections and new governments on the priority-setting
process for the community;
the lack of general understanding of sustainable development principles
and process by local elected officials, staff, and stakeholders in the
community; and
the tendency for Local Agenda 21 processes to focus on traditional
environmental policy and activities.
There are also a number of outside forces that can impede their success.
Private market barriers such as those that do not require manufacturers
to assume responsibility for the costs of disposing of the product
packaging materials they use, can make it difficult for local
governments to meet their targets - in this case related to waste
management. Public markets barriers can encourage unsustainable
behaviour - for example, business costs to provide employees with free
automobile parking are tax deductible in some countries, while the costs
for employers to provide public transit passes are not - a problem for
cities trying to meet targets for greenhouse gas reductions and/or
improved air quality. Legal and regulatory barriers can prohibit local
governments from giving preferential treatment to developers who offer
special measures to increase environmental or social benefits in their
projects. Jurisdictional barriers can leave local governments with
little or no authority to deal with local problems directly.
If Local Agenda
21 is to be implemented successfully, local government plans will need
to be supported by national government policies and programs, and few
existing Local Agenda 21 efforts are linked to national-level
strategies. There are exceptions. In South Africa, for instance, Local
Agenda 21 has been adapted as a mechanism to implement that country's
Reconstruction and Development Plan. In Colombia, Local Agenda 21 is
being linked to a major World Bank-funded, Ministry of the Environment
project to improve the environmental management capacity of local
governments.
In addition,
implementation of the action plans that have been prepared by
stakeholder groups will also require the integration of these plans into
the separate, statutory planning processes of local government. This
will require further local government reform. For example, in
Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada, departmental staff are now required to
demonstrate the consistency of any new proposed action with the
community's "Vision 2020" action plan.
One other area
of uncertainty is the relationship between Local Agenda 21 action plans
and the global objectives of Agenda 21. Of necessity, a Local Agenda 21
must address local priorities as defined by the participatory process.
While Local Agenda 21s in richer countries tend to include actions on
issues such as climate change and the protection of global biodiversity,
these issues may not receive much attention in communities of the
developing world. However, the process does help to educate local
residents about the linkages between local and global problems.
Conclusion
The primary
success of the Local Agenda 21 movement to date has been to help build
the prerequisite local institutional capacity for sustainable
development in hundreds of communities and dozens of countries. This has
been accomplished with surprisingly little external support from donor
agencies and central governments.
The movement is
now entering its second phase. This phase of development will be
characterized by the expansion of Local Agenda 21 activities, worldwide,
as regional and national campaigns continue to grow. It will also be
characterized by the movement of the process beyond institutional
restructuring towards the implementation of action plans dealing with
concrete issues and targets. For this purpose, the local government
community will need to organize new kinds of support both within their
communities and at the sub-national, national and international levels.
The true test
of the Local Agenda 21 process will be the impact it has at both the
local and global levels. Existing national campaigns, in partnership
with regional and international associations, have begun the development
of models, tools and procedures for measuring the impacts and evaluating
the overall performance of the Local Agenda 21 effort.
For its part,
ICLEI is working on projects with local governments to develop the new
models and tools needed for cities and towns to implement their Local
Agenda 21 action plans and monitor their progress. At the same time, it
is also strengthening the framework for its international Local Agenda
21 Campaign, and establishing regional Local Agenda 21 networks in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These networks will work with national
associations of local government and other country-level partners to
provide information and support to national Local Agenda 21 programs.
ICLEI will also continue to monitor the progress of Local Agenda 21
activity worldwide.
Mary Pattenden
is the Director of Development for the International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (for more information see Appendix VII). ICLEI was established in 1990 as the international environmental
agency for local governments. It is a democratic association of local
governments committed to sustainable development, with more than 300
members in 56 countries. It directs two international campaigns, the
Local Agenda 21 Initiative and the Cities for Climate Protection
Campaign. The ICLEI web site is at http://www.iclei.org. Its email address is
iclei@iclei.org. Mary Pattenden can be reached at
mpattenden@iclei.org.
References:
Brugmann, J., 1997, Local Authorities and Agenda 21,
in Dodds, Felix (editor), UNED-UK, 1997, The Way Forward Beyond Agenda
21, Earthscan.
ICLEI,1996, The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An
Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning, Toronto,
ICLEI/IDRC/UNEP.
ICLEI, 1997, Local
Agenda 21 Survey: A Study of Responses by Local Authorities and their
National and International Associations to Agenda 21.
ICLEI, CAG Consultants, UNDESA Division for Sustainable
Development, 1998, Study
on National Obstacles to Local Agenda 21.
Lafferty, William M., and Eckerberg, Katarina
(editors), ProSus, 1997, From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of
Local Agenda 21 in Europe.
UNDPCSD/ICLEI, The Role of Local Authorities in
Sustainable Development, New York, April, 1995.
APPENDIX I
AGENDA 21,
CHAPTER 28
LOCAL
AUTHORITIES' INITIATIVES IN SUPPORT OF AGENDA 21
PROGRAMME AREA
BASIS FOR
ACTION
28.1.Because so
many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have
their roots in local activities, the participation and cooperation of
local authorities will be a determining factor in fulfilling its
objectives. Local authorities construct, operate and maintain economic,
social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes,
establish local environmental policies and regulations, and assist in
implementing national and subnational environmental policies. As the
level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in
educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote
sustainable development.
OBJECTIVES
28.2. The
following objectives are proposed for this programme area:
By 1996, most
local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative
process with their populations and achieved a consensus on "a local
Agenda 21" for the community;
By 1993, the international community should have initiated a
consultative process aimed at increasing cooperation between local
authorities;
By 1994, representatives of associations of cities and other local
authorities should have increased levels of cooperation and coordination
with the goal of enhancing the exchange of information and experience
among local authorities;
All local authorities in each country should be encouraged to implement
and monitor programmes which aim at ensuring that women and youth are
represented in decision-making, planning and implementation processes.
Activities
28.3. Each
local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local
organizations and private enterprises and adopt "a local Agenda
21". Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities
would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and
industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for
formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would
increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local
authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda
21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes
adopted. Strategies could also be used in supporting proposals for
local, national, regional and international funding.
28.4.
Partnerships should be fostered among relevant organs and organizations
such as UNDP, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)
and UNEP, the World Bank, regional banks, the International Union of
Local Authorities, the World Association of the Major Metropolises,
Summit of Great Cities of the World, the United Towns Organization and
other relevant partners, with a view to mobilizing increased
international support for local authority programmes. An important goal
would be to support, extend and improve existing institutions working in
the field of local authority capacity-building and local environment
management. For this purpose:
Habitat and
other relevant organs and organizations of the United Nations system are
called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on
strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need
international support;
Periodic consultations involving both international partners and
developing countries could review strategies and consider how such
international support could best be mobilized. Such a sectoral
consultation would complement concurrent country-focused consultations,
such as those taking place in consultative groups and round tables.
28.5 Representatives of associations of local authorities are encouraged
to establish processes to increase the exchange of information,
experience and mutual technical assistance among local authorities.
MEANS OF
IMPLEMENTATION
(a) Financing
and cost evaluation
28.6. It is
recommended that all parties reassess funding needs in this area. The
UNCED Secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost
(1993-2000) for strengthening international secretariat services for
implementing the activities in this chapter to be about $1 million on
grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude
estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments.
(b) Human
resource development and capacity-building
28.7. This
programme should facilitate the capacity-building and training
activities already contained in other chapters of Agenda 21.
APPENDIX II
LOCAL AGENDA 21
IN CAJAMARCA, PERU
The Provincial
Municipality of Cajamarca, Peru, ranks among the poorest communities in
the world. In 1993, its infant mortality rate was 82% higher than the
Peruvian national average. Cajamarca's main river has been polluted by
mining operations and untreated sewage. Farming on the steep Andean
hillsides, overgrazing, and the cutting of trees has resulted in severe
soil erosion. Increasing poverty is a major concern. The lack of
coordination between agencies made progress almost impossible.
In 1993, the
Mayor of Cajamarca initiated an extensive LA21 planning effort for the
Province. The effort had two components. The first was the
decentralization of the provincial government into 76 jurisdictions,
each with its own elected mayor, so that government decisions would
reflect the needs of the Province's many small and remote communities.
Cajamarca City was divided into 12 neighborhood Councils and the
surrounding countryside into 64 "minor populated centers",
each with their own elected Mayors and Councils. The second component
was the creation of a Provincial Sustainable Development Plan through a
three-year participatory process.
The Provincial
Council established new partnership structures, which for the first time
included a wide range of stakeholders, including private and public
institutions, local communities, farmers, entrepreneurs, and state and
national government organizations. The initiative, known as the
Inter-Institutional Consensus Building Process, aimed for broad-based
consensus on projects that would form the basis for a Provincial
Sustainable Development Plan.
Six "Theme
Boards" were established to develop action proposals in the
following areas: Education; Natural Resources and Agricultural
Production; Production and Employment; Cultural Heritage and Tourism;
Urban Environment; and Women's Issues, Family, and Population. A larger
Inter-Institutional Forum provided an opportunity for discussing
proposals among all the Theme Boards.
The plans
prepared by the Theme Boards were integrated into a Provincial
Sustainable Development Plan, which was submitted to the Provincial
Council in August, 1994. Having received approval, after a series of
public education workshops about the Plan, the Plan was submitted for
public approval through a citizens' referendum.
APPENDIX III
LOCAL AGENDA 21
IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH, CANADA
The Regional
Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada: Hamilton-Wentworth is
situated on the western shores of Lake Ontario and consists of a highly
industrialized core surrounded by rural communities. While the
perception of the region is one of smokestacks and industry, the area
also encompasses a large number of natural features, and environmentally
sensitive areas.
Hamilton
Harbour was considered one of the most extreme "toxic hot
spots" in the Great Lakes system. In 1986, the community
established a multi-stakeholder roundtable, which included
representatives from industry, the community, environmental groups,
government, and other organizations, to identify the environmental
problems in the harbour area and develop solutions for addressing them.
The effort led to a pronounced improvement in harbour conditions.
The success of
this project, plus other participatory efforts encouraged the community
to take on the larger challenge of sustainable development of the
region. In 1990, the Regional Council created a Citizens' Task Force on
Sustainable Development charged with the mandate to consult with the
public to develop an overall vision to guide future development of the
region. The two-and-a-half year process involved more than a thousand
citizen and resulted in a community vision called VISION 2020. The
process also produced 300 detailed recommendations for VISION 2020,
highlighting eleven key areas of concern, including natural areas and
corridors, improving the quality of water resources, improving air
quality, reducing the amount of waste, consuming less energy, land use
in the urban area, changing modes of transportation, personal health and
well-being, community empowerment, the local economy, and agriculture
and the rural economy.
As the region
began the implementation of VISION 2020, the Sustainable Community
Indicators Project was also established involving the region, ICLEI, the
Health of the Public Project, and McMaster University's Environmental
Health Programme. The mandate of this project was to develop a
monitoring system for VISION 2020 that was community driven and
community oriented. This effort resulted in the development of a set of
twenty-nine indicators to monitor overall community progress. Each year
progress on Vision 2020 is reported to the public on Annual VISION 2020
Sustainable Community Day.
APPENDIX IV
LOCAL AGENDA 21
IN KANAGAWA PREFECTURE, JAPAN
In 1993,
Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan adopted a civic charter for global
environmental protection, called the Kanagawa Environment Declaration,
as well as a local action plan called Agenda 21 Kanagawa. Agenda 21
Kanagawa was developed through an intensive process of dialogue that
involved thousands of local residents and businesses, as well as the
local authorities within Kanagawa.
Kanagawa
Prefecture is the home of some eight million residents who live
primarily in the Yokohama and Kawasaki metropolitan areas in the eastern
part of the Prefecture along Tokyo Bay. With a gross domestic product
equivalent to that of Sweden, Kanagawa is also one of the most highly
industrialized regions of the world. Through its policies and actions,
the Prefecture and its local municipalities can have an impact on the
global environment.
In the late
1980s and early 1990s the Prefecture became aware that the focus of
environmental concern had shifted away from end-of-the-pipe industrial
pollution problems to the more complex and non-point source issues of
consumer lifestyles, the structure of urban space, and the gradual loss
of natural lands to urbanization. Furthermore, the impact of local
activities on the global environment, as demonstrated by Kanagawa's
contribution to the ozone depletion problem, played a part in this
changing awareness.
Agenda 21
Kanagawa was formulated by a new Interdepartmental Liaison and
Coordination Committee, made up of the heads of every department within
the Prefecture and chaired by the Vice Governor. A working level
committee made up of section chiefs from each department was established
to review detailed proposals. A secretariat within the Environment
Department managed the public consultation and internal review
processes.
Public input
was provided through three sectoral "conferences" or
committees: one for citizens and non-governmental organizations, one for
private enterprise, and one for local municipalities in Kanagawa. In
addition, neighborhood consultative meetings were organized and a direct
mail package and questionnaire was sent to thousands of residents.
The final
Agenda 21 Kanagawa is a detailed and comprehensive document. The FY 1994
budget for the 52 environmental protection projects implemented within
the framework of the Agenda totaled U.S.$149 million. Initiatives to
date include the construction of 100 "eco-housing" units which
make use of rain water and recycled materials and are highly energy
efficient. A Prefecture-wide system has been established to recover and
destroy ozone depleting CFCs. Subsidies are provided for the purchase of
non-CFC equipment. The Prefecture has set a target to reduce consumption
of tropical timber in public projects by 70% over a three-year period,
and is working with the local construction industry to reduce the
widespread practice of using such timber for concrete moldings.
In terms of
management reforms, a new Kanagawa Council for Global Environmental
Protection has been established to continue the inter-departmentalism
initiated through the Local Agenda 21 development effort. Finally, in
each prefectural section an individual employee has been assigned to
manage in-house environmental performance and to educate prefectural
staff.
APPENDIX V
THE LOCAL
AGENDA 21 NATIONAL CAMPAIGN IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
In January
1993, the five local authority associations in the United Kingdom (the
Association of district Councils, the Association of Country Councils,
the Association of Metro Authorities, the confederation of Scottish
Local Authorities and the Association of Local Authorities in Northern
Ireland) set up a joint Local Agenda 21 Steering Group to develop and
direct a campaign aimed at ensuring a broad-based response by local
government to Agenda 21.
They
established a multi-sectoral steering committee to direct the campaign,
with representation by local elected officials, environmental NGOs, the
business sector, women's groups, the educational sector, academia, trade
union and the Local Government Management Board - LGMB. The LGMB, which
is the technical agency of the local government associations, was
established as the secretariat for the Campaign.
For their first
task, the steering group defined the substantive elements of Local
Agenda 21 in the UK context:
managing and
improving municipal environmental performance;
integrating sustainable development into municipal policies and
activities;
awareness-raising and education
public consultation and participation;
partnership-building;
measuring, monitoring, and reporting on progress towards sustainability.
The campaign supported local governments in their efforts to address
these areas by providing training, guidance, technical expertise, and
opportunities for information exchange. As A result, more than 60% of
the local authorities in the UK have taken major steps towards
undertaking Local Agenda 21 activities. The initiative has been a way to
strengthen local authorities' commitments to the environment, economic
and social development, and local democracy.
Through the UK
Local Agenda 21 Campaign, the UK local authority association has quickly
and voluntarily made Local Agenda 21 a part of everyday business for the
majority of UK local authorities. The high rate of success in such a
short period of time can be explained by the importance of national
municipal associations, the role of the Steering Group members and their
respective networks in influencing local authorities, and the readiness
of the local authorities themselves to take a leadership role in
sustainable development.
APPENDIX VI
Study of Local
Agenda 21 Implementation at the National Level
The most active
region for Local Agenda 21 activity is Europe both for the number of
national campaigns and the number of cities involved. In the book, From
Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda 21 in Europe, the
editors presented descriptions and analysis of Local Agenda 21 activity
in eight countries, including Austria, Finland, Germany, Ireland,
Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The conclusions of
this report include a list of the most significant characteristics
affecting the successful implementation of Local Agenda 21, based on
their study, including:
A previous
involvement on the part of representatives of local authorities in the
UNCED process
An active positive attitude on the part of responsible
central-government official to the LA21 idea
Central-government initiatives and campaigns to disseminate information
on Local Agenda 2
The availability of central government financial resources to subsidize
LA21 initiatives
Enough local-government autonomy to render the LA21 idea interesting and
possible
Membership in cross-national environment-and-development alliances and
charters
A previous history of international "solidarity' orientations and
activities at the local level
Previous municipal involvement in environmental and
sustainable-development pilot projects
Previous experience with 'co-operative management regimes' (among social
partners and stakeholders
Active individual 'firebrands' for LA21 at the local level
Perceived possibilities for coupling LA21 with the creation of new jobs
Perceived conditions of 'threat' to local environment-and -development
conditions from external sources.
The book, From Earth Summit to Local Forum: Studies of Local Agenda 21
in Europe was edited by William M. Lafferty Professor of Political
Science, University of Oslo, and Director, Programme for Research and
documentation for a Sustainable Society (ProSus), Norway and by Katarina
Eckerberg, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Umea
, Sweden for the Program for Research and Documentation for a
Sustainable Society Research Council of Norway, Oslo (ProSus).
APPENDIX VII
INTERNATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES (ICLEI)
The
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is an
association of local governments dedicated to the prevention and
solution of local, regional, and global environmental problems through
local action.
ICLEI was
established in 1990 as the international environmental agency for local
governments under the sponsorship of the United Nations Environment
Programme, International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), and the
Center for Innovative Diplomacy. It is a democratic association with
more than 300 members - cities, towns, counties and their associations
in 56 countries - committed to sustainable development. Each member
holds a position on the ICLEI Council.
In its
extensive work with local governments, ICLEI has established two
worldwide programs that are crucial to the implementation of sustainable
development worldwide:
The Local
Agenda 21 (LA21) Initiative supports local governments in the
preparation and implementation of sustainable development action plans.
There are now more than 2,000 local governments in 64 countries engaged
in LA21 planning.
The Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) Campaign works with more than
250 cities in 41 countries to establish and implement concrete actions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These activities also improve local
air quality and urban livability.
ICLEI supports these programs with comprehensive research, pilot
projects, technical expertise, capacity building, small incentive
grants, resource materials, and a world wide web site at . In addition,
ICLEI provides an extensive international training and exchange program
for local government representatives - to date more than 8,000 have
participated in ICLEI's networking and training activities.
ICLEI is well
situated to provide international projects with local government
contacts in more than 50 countries. Its activities are carried out
through affiliated nationally incorporated not-for-profit companies in
Canada, the USA, and Germany, as well as through a partner organization
in Japan. The World Secretariat is in Toronto, Canada. The European
Secretariat and International Training Centre is in Freiburg, Germany.
It has offices in Berkeley, USA; Tokyo, Japan; Harare, Zimbabwe; and
Santiago, Chile.
ICLEI's World
Secretariat is located at City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor, Toronto,
Ontario Canada, M4K 1X4. Telephone: 01-416-392-1462 Fax: 01-416-392-1478
Email: iclei@iclei.org Web site: http://www.iclei.org
