Zerrin Toprak* and Hamit Palabıyık**

Authors:  

ABSTRACT

The most important suggestion of the Local Agenda 21 is the preparation of local action plans which are vital participants for national action plans. From the standpoint of public administration, Local Agenda 21 insists on “encouragement” against “command”. The Local Agenda 21 initiative in communities produces high level of quidance to ensure involvement of governmental, business, voluntary and community sectors in that process.This article summarises and looks at the main outcames of the Izmir Local Agenda 21 initiatives related to participation and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO’s). The accomplishment of local agenda 21 initiatives highly depend upon being tolerant for differences, convenience for pluralism, openness for new participators. Certainly, decision makers have great deal of responsibilities in social democratization process and governance.

KEYWORDS

Izmir, Local Agenda 21, Local Agenda 21 initiatives, participation, governance. 

Introduction

Throughout the entire world protecting the natural environment, promoting the living conditions of cities and planning of human settlements have become major issues for public administrations. National governments and international institutions aside have similar subjects on their agendas. At the beginning of 21^st century its known that, there are around 100 million people are homeless and 1.2 billion people live in insufficient places.  In other words, at the end of 20^th century, dwelling of the more than half of the world population in cities has specified the human settlement problems in terms of urbanization and the environmental problems. Nowadays, especially high ratio of population density in metropolitan areas has drown attention to cities. Thus, the cities have become indispensable debate subjects about “habitability”and “sustainability”.

In HABITAT I Conference in Vancouver, 1976, governments have discussed the human settlement subjects at local, regional and national contents. Turkey, as a suffering state from high level of urbanization problems, has tried to attempt to join all U.N projects about the settlements. Unfortunately, the principles of HABITAT I did not bring any changes in Turkish settlement policies. After HABITAT I Conference, it has been recognized that the government centered explanations for human settlement problems are not sufficient. The responsibilities in new strategies can not be only dependent on governments actions, but they are dependent on private and public sectors partnerships.  Consequently, two major statements have been accepted internationally at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The first one is Declaration of Rio and the second one is the Local Agenda 21 which is known as an action plan.  The action plan is a statement which describes the roles of all sectors affecting our comprehensive environment.  It is also necessary to point out here the difference between Local Agenda 21 and HABITAT I Conference in Vancouver. First of all HABITAT I depends on government-centered actions against being community-centered actions and participatory management view.  The most important suggestion of the Local Agenda 21 is the preparation of local action plans which are vital participants for national action plans. From the standpoint of public administration, Local Agenda 21 insists on “encouragement” against “command”.  

The Earth Summit and Agenda 21

            In the summer of 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the participatory states’ heads from

all over the world signed the protocol of Agenda 21. The major focus of the UNCED was on the Agenda 21 and its initiatives for sustainable development practices and quality of life improvement. Agenda 21 contains the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (the document’s preamble) and 40 chapters organized into four sections: social, and economic dimensions, conservation and management of resources, strengthening the role of major groups, and means of implementation.[1] Throughout these sections, Agenda 21 discusses human rights, development rights, and state rights, all in relation to a common quality of life theme. The purpose of Agenda 21 is stated in the document; “sustainable development should combine environmental concerns and population issues within a holistic view of development whose primary goals include the alleviation of poverty; secure livehoods; good health; quality of life; improvement of the status and income of women and their access to schooling and professional training, as well as fulfillment of their professional aspirations; and empowerment of individuals and communities”.[2]

            Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 stipulates that by 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their population and achieved a consensus on a local Agenda 21 for their communities. Since the adoption of Agenda 21, many local governments, in co-operation with other local actors, have engaged in a variety of process to achieve local sustainability, commonly named Local Agenda 21. The Local Agenda 21 initiative in communities produces high level of quidance to ensure involvement of governmental, business, voluntary and community sectors in that process. This article summarizes and looks at the main outcomes of the Izmir Local Agenda 21 initiatives related to participation and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO’s).

Habitat II and the Responsibility of Local Agenda 21

The Conference of HABITAT II held in Istanbul in 3-4 June 1996 is the last afford in defining the 21^st century’s agenda. Ones human settlement problems, awareness about world’s common problems, the sense of partnership in seeking solutions, active participation are the key words here. Despite studies for HABITAT II such cities like Izmir, Bursa and Urla, the cities have been found unprepared for the City Summit in Istanbul, 1996. Studies at this era have been directed to specify principles of Turkish National Plan. Actually, an important contribution has come from the universities and NGOs.

At the same time, the preferences of national plan have been subjected to alternative plans by some groups. There were two fundamental reasons for the contradictory.  First, as mentioned above, is being unprepared for the Summit. Second, not less important than the first one, is the lack of sense of cooperation. Despite these conflicts, the new process has been discovered in figuring out the collective sense, at least, in human settlements. Especially in municipalities there is clear development about participatory  sense among decision-makers and citizens.

The Earth Summit, produced many policies and commitments which national governments should implement to achieve development. Agenda 21 sets out many of the necessary actions. It is widely recognized that the action based on these policies relies heavily on voluntary sectors. The Local Agenda 21 initiative in communities produces high level of quidance to ensure involvement of governmental, business, voluntary and community sectors in that process.

Briefly, Local Agenda is a cooperation process in creating sustainable settlements. The term of habitability reflects the living conditions such social and economic indicators; physical appearance, environmental and health issues including even human psychology. Indeed, these subjects are known as the rights of settlers. However, it requires great responsibility to ensure today’s and future generation’s rights. Lawful state and law-abiding individuals together make possible sustainability of settlements. Sense of cooperation and participatory efforts are the key factors in achieving the success.

Local Governments and the Local Agenda 21

From the standpoint of public participation, it has been understood that the NGOs are indispensable actors for democratic life. Especially voluntary organizations have vital roles in those organizations. As a matter of fact, the characteristic of 21^st century is democracy, human rights and democratic community organizations. However, it can be also said as contrary progress, non-governmental organizations seek their futures in centralism that stands as an important problem in Turkey.

The accomplishment of the Local Agenda 21 initiative is heavily depends on the mayor’s commitment that is confidence rather than legal responsibility.

Mayor; the responsibility of the mayor in the Local Agenda 21 initiative is having commitment to be successful. The support of the mayor is required in all levels of practice. Perhaps the most significant reason for being out of these efforts is the mayor’s political/managerial preference resulted from traditional solid managerial understanding.

Council; it can be suggested that the best way for an effective Local Agenda 21 initiative is to create a Local Agenda 21 committee besides the other council committees.  The selected members of all political parties and independent members should be in the Local Agenda 21 committee. Clearly this is a clarifying the responsibilities. However, all representatives may attend committee meetings. Council members bring the decisions of the Local Agenda 21 Executive Council to metropolitan and county municipality councils’ agenda.

The Office of the Local Agenda 21; the Local Agenda 21 initiatives are being carried out by municipal officers. There are several difficulties of not having special office of Local Agenda 21 in the municipal organizational structure. The main obstacles for this are financial constraints. It has been stated that the accomplishment of initiatives is heavily depend on commitment to succeed and suitable physical and financial conditions. Also, the officers of the Local Agenda 21 office must be capable and hard working.

Local Agenda 21 Executive Council and its Chairman; Executive Council is not solid establishment. But, it is open for every citizen who feels responsibility for his/her settlement. The active members who attend meetings regularly are accepted as the members of executive council.  In fact, the executive council has greater importance than the chairman does. Therefore, instead of looking for a chairman in meetings, it is suggested that the one of the active members may act as a chairman in short , 3-4months, terms.  Indeed, that practice seems to be more functional.

The signatures of the civil servants and the active members of the executive council on the invitation letters show that the partnership involving public and private sectors. Thus, the local politics have been created as a result of those activities.  Furthermore, the symbols of supporting projects and efforts of the executive council are placed on the invitation letters.

Local Agenda 21 Executive Council is a place where the discussions on the settlement projects are held in.  Especially it is, also, important to protect writers’ rights -copyrights related to project activities.

Local Agenda 21 initiatives are not only depend on academic and business sectors’ efforts. It depends on partnerships involving all public and private sectors. The clear and definite goals and program are the major factors to encourage these sectors.

There are 3 groups in Local Agenda 21 initiatives: Active members, audience, rejection groups and obstacle creators.

Active members, carry out the Local Agenda 21 process. Also, the planned workload is very important to encourage them. Audience, also, can be examined in three groups. Honest-sincere audience and who they do not know how to participate in initiatives. Therefore, the public relations departments in municipalities have critical roles to inform those groups.

Some unions and organizations that behave timidly in involving the process. This timidity may be removed by introducing the names and activities of organizations supporting the process.

Especially pressure groups regulate their agendas by themselves. They may directly affect the results of projects. In some examples, especially in profitable conflicts this group can act as a rejection group. Rejection groups always criticize but do not contribute to initiative. Indeed, they do not have any suggestion about it.

The Local Agenda 21 Initiative of Izmir

UNDP, Turkish Government, and IULA-EMME (International Union of Local Authorities-Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East) have signed the project of the Development and the Encouragement of Local Agenda 21 initiatives in Turkey supported by UNDP (United Nations Development Program), as an international treaty in September 1997. This project was published in reiterated edition of Turkish Official Gazette in March 6, 1998. It must be stated that the Circular of the Ministry of Interior Affairs dated 19 March 1998 has been an encouraging factor for Turkish municipalities that started their Local Agenda 21 initiatives

Throughout Turkey, such as Izmir, Antalya and Bursa metropolitan municipalities promoted Local Agenda 21 process. Also, Izmir Metropolitan Municipality launched its initiatives by partnerships involving local universities and voluntary sectors in l995 voluntarily before l997 as mentioned about above.

In October 2^nd 1996, the mayor of Izmir Metropolitan Municipality called for a new meeting after HABITAT II. This call intended to update activities started in 1995. Furthermore, the mayor of Izmir, Burhan Ozfatura, the governor of Izmir, and the Local Agenda 21 Executive Council invited new participants. Local governments, agencies of central government, universities, non-governmental organisations, some of private sectors' representatives and citizens all took part in this new initiative. The first task was to establish work groups to draw a picture of urban and environmental problems of Izmir under the co-ordination of Local Agenda 21 the Executive Council. Three topics, urbanisation, environment and migration were considered within this framework.

Working groups were formed by volunteers. The group representatives held regular advisory meetings. The ultimate aim of these meetings is the preparation of an action plan for Izmir. Izmir Metropolitan Municipality, specially supports of the mayor, Ahmet Piriţtina contributed to facilitate these efforts for sustainable urban life till today.

Besides these initiatives in city of Izmir, Izmir experience produces a quidance to help to create “regional HABITAT”. All studies mentioned above have been published in the advisory meeting held in 24-25 June 1998 for common discussion.

The new committees for counties and the advisory meetings for these committees have been planned for the term of the year 1999. Izmir Metropolitan Municipality is well placed to help facilitate these efforts. Moreover, all initiatives are systematic and continuous; and, they are waiting for great support from public and private sectors. As mentioned before, Local Agenda 21 initiatives are heavily based on local and central governments partnership involving business, voluntary sectors and citizens.

The Basic Outcomes of Izmir Local Agenda 21 Initiatives: Participation and Civil Society

Given lack of performance and capacity of administrations both in local and national levels have revealed the necessity of public participation in local politics. Participation at local politics seems more democratic and one of the best ways to achieve democratic patterns.

Public, private sectors and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the factors effecting “legal decision makers” by participating. The term of NGOs refers to associations, foundations, unions, chambers and voluntary organizations e.t.c. Today, theoretically, the institutions/organizations that financially supported and/or leaded by the governments are not admitted as NGOs. However, the NGOs have vital role in local and national levels with regard to democratic process by controlling public sector members and supporting the nation to the multi-national companies and to other nations. Thus, the term of “civil society” is defined as an autonomous field originating outside of the government and state mandated social-economic sphere.[3] Briefly, NGOs are primarily voluntary, social, willing to question government, out of the state sphere and service provider institutions operate between the private and governmental realms.

As a matter of fact the term of “civil society” is not newly invented concept. It is known that it has been used since ancient times by some essential meaning changes. In addition, the term of civil society roots back to Aristotle’s (Death BC: 384) term of “koinonia” as a meaning of the field including all levels of the society. Since second half of the 18^th century, it can be said that there has been a significant semantic displacement of the term. In the era of D. Hume, the term of “civil society” had been used as a “modernized society”. By Hegel, it was used to define antinomy of the terms “civil society” and “state”. Henceforth, these two terms are not being used for one another.[4]

Nowadays, civil society refers to being autonomous from public administration. But it is not supposed to be apart from it. However, public authorities prefer “secrecy” rather than “openness” in their administrations. As a result, the term of monitoring/controlling disquiets the authorities and they try to block the existence of NGOs in any opportunity. Therefore, the development of civilian society movements is evaluated as social equilibrium[5] factor obstacling governmental/state despotism.

In Turkey, “civil society” has been ideally appreciated by the decision-makers who pursue the western model of development. On the contrary, the distinctive characteristics of civil society such as “administrative and financial autonomy” have been taken wrongly as a threat to society, so the “bureaucratic society” has been established. Thus, the creation of autonomous establishments has failed both in local governments and another social organizations which are the cornerstones of democratic structure. Since the beginning of the Republic the strong central government structure sensitively protected by the legal decision-makers.

Because of the “bureaucratic society” structure, the relationships and practical partnerships among political parties, NGOs, and local governments especially municipalities are not being experienced. They often come together occasionally, and it is highly expectable having disagreements all over issues. The groups, which are externalized, from local politics tend to be in “contradictionary models” that complicate solutions anyway. For that reason the widespread of exercising cooperation examples among all levels of society would ensure an effective and efficient management samples. Briefly, ”equal partnerships/initiatives” based on local social dynamics in local politics are gaining importance.

Achieving productive results require measurements as follows:

Initiatives and services must be directed to satisfy local communities’ and individuals’ needs and expectations, and the “public interest/satisfaction” principle must be paid attention[6] in public services.

Whereas these two basic measurements are contradictory each other; it is not clear that how to get on well together them in achieving local communities’ expectations and broad public interest. In numerous studies undertaken in the US show that being “supra-political” and “confidence to objective public interest” are regarded as strategic faults in evaluating lobbies’ activities to pursue “good governance”.[7]

From the “supra-political” point of view, it is accepted that making laws alone does not solve the problems, and without being under pressure from outside, it is not rational establishing new administration units and reorganizing them. From the “confidence to objective public interest” point of view it is understood that the political conflicts and lack of success in political bargaining process will be sustained. In summary, carrying out the decisions properly related public depend upon multi-sectoral cooperation.

Labor Unions have significant positions in NGOs regard to their bargaining power in politics. Unions are the judicial organizations operate to improve social and economic benefits of their own members. Both the labor and the employer unions are structurally called as a “pressure and interest groups”. Because of the negative influences of the public sector structural deficiencies on the labor unions, labor unions have not met expectations.

When the goals and the objectives of the unions evaluated it can be said that the labor unions perform to improve the social, economic and political processes. On the other hand, they have been frequently criticized for “wage unionism”. The globalization scenario is regarded as an obstacle against labor unions’ interests.

Developing and underdeveloped countries have acted reluctantly accepting basic rights and freedoms and given opportunity developing them. Not only the intervening structure of the administrations both in public and private sectors but also lack of effectiveness in international trade competition cause acting in this way.

For that reason organized social structure has not been achieved yet because of reasons stated above. Actually organized social structure means a society in which social/state interests are reconciled with the community interests. Since the interests always do not fit, democratic process has been used to harmonize those interests by dialog and cooperation in developed countries. Furthermore, either national or international organizations/institutions are not willing to support to solve this strain. The only reason for this, developed countries gain their power from conflicts and discordant structures of underdeveloped countries.

Today’s sophisticated international relations and globalization process do not allow the nation states to carry out their macro-economic policies individually. In case of labor unions, there are problems even in developed countries’ labor unions problems. Increasing unemployment rates and numerous technological oriented problems have been resulted in externalization influences for plenty of industrial labor force. The existence of ununionized labor force in developing countries is getting a great deal of attention by global companies because of cheaper costs. Unfortunately this might be considered as a “good chance” for public and national economies. Especially labor intensive manufacturing in developing countries gets a great attention in terms of low-paid women and child labor forces. Therefore, the international manufacturers tend to make investments to the underdeveloped countries rather than developed countries. Frankly neither the international firms/organizations nor the nations themselves want to improve working conditions and union related rights like developed countries –US-. It stands as a dilemma: Ununionized, cheaper labor force working in low degree of working conditions and high unemployment rates. The basic question is how to explain and solve this dilemma?

Today’s sophisticated dynamics of the international relations affect and change developing countries’ economic development goals and priorities. In this sense, domestic stability of developing countries has become more important than others. However, guaranteeing of the union related rights and widespreading of the unions are not in desired positions yet. Union related rights, as the other social rights seem to be inconclusive in developing countries.

At this point either globalization and international integration movements or the national movements towards to becoming organized society support the development of union related rights process. Positive contributions to the process and the public education are the new perspectives that generally admitted as new dimensions of unionism.

In a participatory model in which all private, public and non-governmental actors participate, democracy has been accepted as an instrument used to solve all politic problems in a system. The organized groups play vital roles to ensure acting laws and carrying them correctly. Those remarks show that more effective and efficient governance models may contribute to progress democratic process.

In this context the findings of Izmir Local Agenda 21 published studies related to participation may be summarized as follows:

Published studies:

·           Towards Agenda 21 in Izmir, Izmir 1996.

·        “Urbanisation-Environmental-Migration Problems of Izmir and Resolution Proposals” -Volume I-, Urbanisation Report (Draft), Izmir 1998.

·        “Urbanisation-Environmental-Migration Problems of Izmir and Resolution Proposals” -Volume II, Environmental Report (Draft), Izmir 1998.

·        “Urbanisation-Environmental-Migration Problems of Izmir and Resolution Proposals” -Volume II, Migration Report (Draft), Izmir 1998.

·        “The Politics in Turkish Local Councils”, Izmir 2000.

·        “Women and Youth: Integrating into Local Policy-making Process”, Izmir 1999.

·        “The Role and Importance of the Urban Security Staff –Zabıta- in Metropolitan Areas”, Izmir 2000.

·        “Participation in Parish Administrations (Mahalles) in Izmir”, Izmir 2000.

·        “Participation and Civil Society: Labor Unions in Izmir”, Izmir 2000.

·        “Natural Gas Management in Izmir”, Izmir 2000.

Basic participants of project surveys preparation processes:

·        Local governments in metropolitan area of Izmir; central government agencies, universities, interest groups, citizens.

·        With the participatory process, 523 survey questions in total have been prepared and applied in projects. Surveys regarding to 10 different sectors groups had been applied face to face to 6800 residents by 125 university students, youths, voluntary organizations’ members who totally informed about local agenda 21.

City & Citizen Council Meetings;

·        From October l996 – 2001 January, 52 City & Citizen Council Meetings had been hold by approximately 15.600 participants, in average 250-350 participant per meeting.

·        In these meetings, development about “participation”, “right to access to information” are achieved. In the cases of argued subjects, from the point of central and local administrative relationships view, Local Agenda participants had supported local policy-makers.

The Basic findings and an Evaluation

Due to contradictory models in practice, general public opinions are not clear and strong about NGOs roles at strengthening democracy. There are no strong relationships and even no relationships among NGOs. This lack of communication results in considerable public hesitations to NGOs. On the other hand, the relationships between supporters/voters and political parties are getting weaker gradually. For all politicized dynamics of the society, political parties loose their attractiveness. Therefore, both unionized workers and the society find partially useful cooperation between political parties and unions. Although, in generally, there are strong opinions about unions’ social and economic gains to their own members the opinions about their positive contributions to democratic process are not clear and strong. Although other NGOs are cautious against cooperation with the unions, the union members tend to be more cooperative than others are. In generally, there are strong public suspicions against labor unions. In spite of all negative opinions against the unions, the unionized labor force still has strong beliefs in being organized. Unionized labor force think that there is a positive relationship between being unionized and democratic progress. On the other hand, other non-governmental organizations’ members do not have same thoughts related to relationship between unionism and democracy relationship.

All social organizations are bizarre each other, and behave suspiciously for cooperation. They have strong opinions about existence of interest conflicts in the society and effectiveness of private sector intervention in local and national politics.

In conclusion, general acceptance of social convention among individuals and other private, non-governmental actors which is known as Agenda 21 philosophy should be achieved. In this sense the creation of discussion platforms for all public, private and NGOs is critical to make social projects achievable and social-economic aims affordable. In summary, it is high time to practicing community oriented “governance” models. Both local authorities and communities have responsibilities to protect local identities and to overcome related problems. For the multi-identical dwellers of the globalized world the main obstacle to overcome is establishing affordable living environment and becoming “local communities”. It is not expected to behave by sole individual interests in this context. The accomplishment highly depends upon being tolerant for differences, convenience for pluralism, openness for new participators. Certainly, decision-makers have great deal of responsibilities in social democratization process and governance.