United Nations
Commission on Sustainable Development

Report


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 I C L E I
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Local Agenda 21 Survey

                                     --
                 A Study of Responses by Local Authorities
             and Their National and International Associations
                                to Agenda 21

                                Prepared by

                                 I C L E I
         International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives             


                            in Cooperation with

                                  UNDPCSD
                       United Nations Department for
              Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development

                               February 1997


                             Table of Contents

   * I. Introduction
   * II. Survey Methodology
   * III. Survey Findings
        o A. Findings of the National/Regional Survey
        o B. Findings of the Local Government Survey
             + 1. The Focus of Local Agenda 21 Planning
             + 2. Participation in the Planning Process
             + 3. The Preparation of the Local Agenda 21 Action Plans
             + 4. The Implementation of Local Agenda 21 Action Plans
   * IV. Analysis of Survey Results
        o A. The Role of National and Regional Local Agenda 21 Campaign
        o B. Different Approaches in Developing and Developed Countries
        o C. Obstacles to Local Agenda 21 Planning
        o D. Local Agenda 21 Impacts, 1992-1996
   * V. Recommendations and Conclusions
   * Annex 1. International Support Programs
        o United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)/United
          Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
        o United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
        o International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
        o Other Local Agenda 21 Support Programmes
   * Notes


I. Introduction

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.
                          Agenda 21, Section 28.28


The Local Agenda 21 concept was formulated and launched by the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in 1991
as a framework for local governments worldwide to engage in implementing
the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED)1. ICLEI, along with partner national and international
local government associations and organizations (LGOs), championed the
Local Agenda 21 concept during the 1991-1992 UNCED preparatory process.
These efforts led to the integration of the Local Agenda 21 concept in the
main outcome of UNCED, Agenda 21.

Following UNCED, local governments, national and international LGOs, and
international bodies and UN agencies entered a period of experimentation
with the implementation of the Local Agenda 21 concept. The lead actors in
these efforts were the local governments themselves which worked, often
with the support of their national municipal associations, to develop the
Local Agenda 21 planning approaches appropriate to their circumstances.
However, international programmes played a critical role in documenting and
analyzing these growing local experiences, and in facilitating the exchange
of Local Agenda 21 approaches and tools (Annex 1).

The accumulation and exchange of practical experiences helped to identify a
set of universal elements and factors for the success of Local Agenda 21
planning. While these elements and factors are being continually updated
and revised by local practitioners, five key elements have been defined for
Local Agenda 21 planning in the 1992-1996 period. These are:

   * Multi-sectoral engagement in the planning process through a local
     stakeholders group which serves as the coordination and policy body
     for preparing a long-term sustainable development action plan.

   * Consultation with community groups, NGOs, business, churches,
     government agencies, professional groups and unions in order to create
     a shared vision and to identify proposals and priorities for action.

   * Participatory assessment of local social, economic and environmental
     conditions and needs.

   * Participatory target-setting through negotiations among key
     stakeholders in order to achieve the vision and goals set forth in the
     action plan.

   * Monitoring and reporting procedures, including local indicators, to
     track progress and to allow participants to hold each other
     accountable to the action plan.

The rapid growth in interest and action around the Local Agenda 21
framework was recognized by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development
(CSD). At its second session in 1994, the Commission adopted decisions in
support of Local Agenda 21 and opened the way for a special event to focus
global attention on this growing movement. The third CSD session included a
"Day of Local Authorities" which brought the experiences of local
governments into the Commission's discussions through the presentation of
case studies, a panel discussion with mayors and other municipal leaders,
and an exhibition showcasing Local Agenda 21 programmes in six cities.2

At the fourth session of the CSD, with the 1997, five-year review of Agenda
21 by a Special Session of the UN General Assembly in mind, the UN
Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) and
ICLEI announced their plans to jointly conduct a detailed stock-taking of
the Local Agenda 21 movement. The CSD responded enthusiastically:


[The CSD] welcomes the initiative of the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives, together with the Department for Policy
Coordination and Sustainable Development of the United Nations Secretariat,
to assess the state of local Agenda 21 initiatives through a world-wide
survey, and invited Governments and national sustainable development
coordination institutions to give their full support in gathering this
valuable information for the 1997 review process.
          Document # E/CN.17/1996/28, Decision 4/9, paragraph (f)


I. Survey Methodology

Between April 1996 and January 1997 ICLEI, in collaboration with the DPCSD,
undertook a detailed assessment of the Local Agenda 21 movement and the
implementation of Chapter 28 of Agenda 21. Two complementary surveys were
prepared and distributed to document both the quantity and quality of Local
Agenda 21 activity.

The first survey was directed specifically to national governments,
National Sustainable Development Councils (NSDCs), and national and
regional LGOs (henceforth the national/regional survey). Its primary
purpose was to collect quantitative data on the range and extent of Local
Agenda 21 efforts on a country-by-country basis. The distribution of this
survey targeted the known list of 92 NCSDs and the corresponding Permanent
Missions of the countries to the UN as well as 148 regional and national
LGOs. Seventy-five (75) NCSDs were reached due to the incomplete contact
information available at the time of distribution. The distribution of this
survey produced a total of 53 responses, representing a 24% response rate.
The responses reported on activities in 58 countries.

A second survey (henceforth the "local government survey") was distributed
to a list of 196 local governments from ICLEI's data-base of local
governments which had indicated a commitment to Local Agenda 21. The
purpose of this survey was to obtain an overview of the qualitative aspects
of Local Agenda 21 planning and implementation in the sample local
communities. The distribution of this survey produced a total of 90
responses representing a 46% response rate. The responses reflected a
sample of local activities in 26 countries.

To distinguish between Local Agenda 21 activities and other kinds of
environmental planning and management processes that were reported in the
survey responses, ICLEI defined the Local Agenda 21 process as follows:

Local Agenda 21 is a participatory, multi-sectoral process to achieve the
goals of Agenda 21 at the local level through the preparation and
implementation of a long-term, strategic action plan that addresses
priority local sustainable development concerns.

On the basis of this definition of Local Agenda 21, a number of responses
were omitted from the final tabulation of Local Agenda 21 activities. Among
the reported activities that were not included in the tabulations are:

   * activities stemming from the delegation of national or state-level
     Agenda 21 responsibilities to local governments;

   * planning that was based on a one-time consultation process rather than
     an ongoing participatory process of local sustainable development
     decision making;

   * processes that did not engage a diversity of local sectors;

   * activities that did not apply the sustainable development concept;
     that is, an integrated approach to environmental, social and economic
     issues.

The survey responses were double-checked through telephone interviews,
comparisons with national Local Agenda 21 survey results, and regional
consultation meetings with LGOs and local government officials. This work
was completed in January 1997. As a result, the responses of 44 of the 53
national/regional surveys were accepted as valid manifestations of Local
Agenda 21, and these validated responses were used to derive the
quantitative findings of this report. Similarly, the responses of all of
the 90 local government surveys were assessed, and 76 of the reporting
local governments from 24 countries were confirmed as having valid Local
Agenda 21 planning processes. These validated Local Agenda 21 processes
were used to derive the qualitative findings and conclusions of this
report.


III. Survey Findings

A. Findings of the National/Regional Survey

The national/regional survey revealed that as of November 30, 1996, more
than 1,800 local governments in 64 countries were involved in Local Agenda
21 activities. Of this number, ICLEI confirmed that Local Agenda 21
planning was underway in 933 municipalities from 43 countries and was just
getting started in an additional 879 municipalities. Most of these planning
processes are being undertaken under the name of "Local Agenda 21."
However, the Local Agenda 21 mandate is being implemented in a number of
cities and towns under a different local name or through an established
international assistance programme, such as the UNCHS Sustainable Cities
Programme, the UNDP Capacity 21 Programme or the GTZ Urban Environmental
Management Programme.

Local Agenda 21 activities are most concentrated in the eleven countries
where national Local Agenda 21 campaigns are underway--in Australia,
Bolivia, China, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of
Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (see Figure 1). In these countries,
1,487 local governments--representing 82% of the reported total--have
established Local Agenda 21 planning efforts. An additional 6% of the
reported total, or 117 Local Agenda 21 processes, have been established in
the nine countries where national Local Agenda 21 campaigns are just now
getting underway--in Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malawi,
Peru, South Africa, and the United States. The remaining 208 reported Local
Agenda 21 processes are taking place in 44 countries that do not have
national campaigns. These findings highlight the critical importance of
national Local Agenda 21 campaigns to the implementation of Agenda 21,
Chapter 28. A detailed description of these campaigns can be found in
section IV.A of this report.

Municipalities in developed countries account for 1,631 or 90% of the
identified Local Agenda 21 planning processes. Nevertheless, Local Agenda
21 planning is rapidly increasing in 42 developing countries and
economies-in-transition, where 181 Local Agenda 21 planning processes were
identified (see Figure 2).

The national/regional survey also documented the types of activities being
undertaken as part of Local Agenda 21 planning. Of the 933 Local Agenda 21
processes that were identified to be underway, all have established a
consultative process with local residents, 516 have established a local
"stakeholders group" to oversee this process, and 666 have begun the
preparation of a local action plan. Among the most advanced processes, 237
have established a framework to monitor and report on the achievement of
action plan objectives, and 210 have established local indicators for
monitoring purposes.

The national/regional survey asked respondents to rank the criteria that
they used to design the Local Agenda 21 activities in their country or
region. Box 1 presents these criteria in the order of their priority to the
respondents.


Figure 1.  RESULTS OF ICLEI/DPCSD LOCAL AGENDA 21 SURVEY BY NATIONAL
           CAMPAIGNS--November 30, 1996

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            National     # of     National   # of                 # of
 Region     Campaign     LA21s    Campaign   LA21s    No National LA21s
            Established  Started  Starting   Started  Campaign    Started
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AFRICA                           MALAWI     6        GHANA       1
                                  SOUTH
                                  AFRICA     10       KENYA       4
                                                      MOROCCO     3
                                                      MOZAMBIQUE  2
                                                      NIGERIA     1
                                                      SENEGAL     1
                                                      TANZANIA    3
                                                      TUNISIA     1
                                                      UGANDA      2
                                                      ZAMBIA      1
                                                      ZIMBABWE    4

 ASIA       AUSTRALIA    40                           INDIA       20
            CHINA        14                           INDONESIA   6
            JAPAN        26                           NEPAL       1
            "KOREA,REP."  9                           NEW ZEALAND 3
                                                      PAPUA NEW
                                                      GUINEA      1
                                                      PHILIPPINES 3
                                                      THAILAND    6
                                                      VIET NAM    2

 EUROPE     DENMARK      147      GERMANY    30       ALBANIA     1
            FINLAND      88       GREECE     13       AUSTRIA     2
            NETHERLANDS  143      IRELAND    22       BELGIUM     5
            NORWAY       415                          CROATIA     1
            SWEDEN       307                          ESTONIA     1
            UNITED
            KINGDOM      285                          FRANCE      15
                                                      HUNGARY     12
                                                      ITALY       22
                                                      LATVIA      1
                                                      LUXEMBOURG  1
                                                      POLAND      3
                                                      PORTUGAL    10
                                                      ROMANIA     2
                                                      RUSSIAN
                                                      FED.        5
                                                      SLOVENIA    1
                                                      SLOVAK
                                                      REPUBLIC    3
                                                      SPAIN       29
                                                      SWITZERLAND 2
                                                      UKRAINE     10

 MIDDLE
 EAST                                                 EGYPT       1
                                                      TURKEY      3

 NORTH                            UNITED
 AMERICA                          STATES     19       CANADA      7
 &
 CARIBBEAN                                            ST. LUCIA   2

 SOUTH
 AMERICA    BOLIVIA      13       BRAZIL     8        CHILE       1
                                  COLOMBIA   4        ECUADOR     3
                                  PERU       5

 SUBTOTALS  11 countries 1487     9          117      44          208
                                  countries           countries

TOTAL: 1812 Local Agenda 21 initiatives in 64 countries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Figure 2. RESULTS OF ICLEI/DPCSD LOCAL AGENDA 21 SURVEY--November 30, 1996

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Region      Developed    # of    $766 or      # of    $765 or     # of
             Countries    LA21s   above*       LA21s   less*       LA21s
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AFRICA                           MOROCCO      3       GHANA       1
                                  SOUTH AFRICA 10      KENYA       4
                                  TUNISIA      1       MALAWI      6
                                                       MOZAMBIQUE  2
                                                       NIGERIA     1
                                                       SENEGAL     1
                                                       TANZANIA    3
                                                       UGANDA      2
                                                       ZAMBIA      1
                                                       ZIMBABWE    4

 ASIA        AUSTRALIA    40      INDONESIA    6       CHINA       14
             JAPAN        26      "KOREA,      9       INDIA       20
                                  REP."
             NEW ZEALAND  3       PAPUA NEW    1       NEPAL       1
                                  GUINEA
                                  PHILIPPINES  3       VIET NAM    2
                                  THAILAND     6

 EUROPE      AUSTRIA      2       CROATIA      1       ALBANIA     1
             BELGIUM      5       ESTONIA      1
             DENMARK      147     HUNGARY      12
             FINLAND      88      LATVIA       1
             FRANCE       15      POLAND       3
             GERMANY      30      ROMANIA      2
             GREECE       13      RUSSIAN FED. 5
             IRELAND      22      SLOVAK REP.  3
             ITALY        22      SLOVENIA     1
             LUXEMBOURG   1       UKRAINE      10
             NETHERLANDS  143
             NORWAY       415
             PORTUGAL     10
             SPAIN        29
             SWEDEN       307
             SWITZERLAND  2
             UNITED
             KINGDOM      285

 MIDDLE                           EGYPT        1
 EAST                             TURKEY       3

 NORTH
 AMERICA     CANADA       7       ST. LUCIA    2
 & CARIBBEAN UNITED       19
             STATES

 SOUTH                            BRAZIL       8
 AMERICA                          BOLIVIA      13
                                  CHILE        1
                                  COLOMBIA     4
                                  ECUADOR      3
                                  PERU         5

 SUBTOTAL    22 countries 1631    27 countries 118     15          63
                                                       countries

Total: 1812 Local Agenda 21 Initiatives in 64 countries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Economies are divided according to GNP per capita, calculated using the
World Bank Attas method.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 1. Criteria For Local Agenda 21 Planning

Q: What are the range of criteria you are using to define your Local Agenda
21 or sustainable development planning process? Rank all suitable responses
in order of importance.
________________________________________

  1. It must address economic, social and ecological needs together.

  2. It must include a consensus on a vision for a sustainable future.

  3. It must include a participatory process with local residents.

  4. It must establish a Stakeholders Group, Forum or equivalent
     multi-sectoral community group to oversee the process.

  5. It must prepare an Action Plan with concrete long-term targets.

  6. It must prepare an Action Plan (without long-term targets).

  7. It must establish a monitoring and reporting framework.

  8. It must establish indicators to monitor progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interestingly, the prioritization of criteria provided in the responses to
this question reflect the chronological order of Local Agenda 21
planning--starting with defining the process and building consensus and
ending with the monitoring the implementation of an action plan. This
result highlights the fact that most local governments are still in the
early stages of Local Agenda 21 planning and at present are giving greater
attention to participation and consensus-building in the preparation of a
Local Agenda 21 action plans than to measures required for the
implementation these action plans.

Further details about the nature of Local Agenda 21 planning were
documented by the local government survey.


B. Findings of the Local Government Survey

The results of the local government survey provide a closer look at the
qualitative aspects of the Local Agenda 21 planning that has been taking
place since UNCED.

1. The Focus of Local Agenda 21 Planning

The local government survey sought to ascertain whether local governments
actually were using the Local Agenda 21 process to integrate social,
economic and environmental planning (sustainable development planning) or
whether the process was being dominated by existing environmental planning
approaches. The responses presented in Box 2 indicate that most local
governments are taking a sustainable development approach, although a
significant percentage of local governments in developed countries are
giving priority to environmental sustainability considerations.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 2. The Thematic Focus of Local Agenda 21 Planning

Q: Which of the following best describes the approach you are taking in
your Local Agenda 21 or sustainable development planning process?
(Responses show the percentage of respondents that listed each approach as
their number one priority.)
________________________________________

                            All Developed     Developing Countries &
                                Countries     Economies-in-Transition

 Addressing environmental,
 economic and social        41% 40%           43%
 concerns equally.

 Focusing on protection of
 the environment.           25% 29%           7%

 Improving environmental
 and social conditions
 within the constraints of  18% 18%           21%
 what is economically
 acceptable.

 Letting local residents
 decide what is most        9%  6%            21%
 important.

 Focusing on economic
 development, but making
 sure that environmental    0%  0%            0%
 and social concerns are
 better considered.

 No answer.                 7%  7%            8%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


These responses reveal that Local Agenda 21 approaches in developing
countries and economies-in-transition are more comprehensive in their
application of the sustainable development concept. In addition, Local
Agenda 21 processes in developing countries and economies-in-transition
appear to be more responsive to the immediate needs of local residents. In
contrast, in the developed countries Local Agenda 21 planning is more
likely to focus, at least initially, on environmental protection. This may
reflect the reality that the Local Agenda 21 movement in communities in
developed countries is often managed by a local environmental department or
organization.

2. Participation in the Planning Process

The different approaches taken to participation and consensus-building for
Local Agenda 21 planning are reflected in Box 3. On average, each of the
Local Agenda 21 processes confirmed by the local government survey used
three different instruments for consultation and participation.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 3. Local Agenda 21 Approaches to Consultation and Participation

Q: What ways is your local authority using to consult community members as
part of the requirements for a Local Agenda 21? (More than one response is
allowed by each respondent.)
________________________________________

                                                             Total Percent

 Working groups or multi-sectoral roundtables                52    68%

 Questionnaires/surveys                                      49    64%

 Community meetings and forums                               45    59%

 Focus groups                                                35    46%

 Planning that includes negotiations with different sectors
 in the community                                            31    41%

 Visioning exercises with stakeholders                       30    39%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The answers in Box 3 demonstrate the central importance given to
multi-sectoral "stakeholder groups" in the implementation of Local Agenda
21 planning. As presented in Box 4, below, the local government survey also
identified the extent of participation of different sectors and local
constituencies in these stakeholder groups.

In addition to the sectors and groups listed in Box 4, survey respondents
also listed the participation of the following groups: cultural
organizations, political parties, service providers, churches, consumer
groups, international organizations, social clubs, and representatives for
the elderly, disabled, or unemployed. During the survey validation process,
a number of localities mentioned difficulties in obtaining the support and
participation of local branches of multi-national corporations. Others
clarified that, although women's organizations may not be involved, women
are well represented through their roles as representatives of other types
of organizations.

As can be seen from these responses, while local governments are taking a
broad based approach, a significant percentage of Local Agenda 21 processes
need to strengthen efforts to involve minorities and/or indigenous peoples.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 4. The Participation of Different Sectors in Local Agenda 21 Planning

Q: Which of the following sectors is your local authority formally
including in the process to plan, implement and monitor your Action Plan
for Local Agenda 21 or sustainable development?
________________________________________

                                         Total  Percent

 Business sector                         63     83%

 Community organizations                 62     82%

 NGOs                                    60     79%

 Educational sector                      53     70%

 Scientific institutions (universities)  44     58%

 Government other than municipal         40     53%

 Youth                                   40     53%

 Women                                   40     53%

 Trade unions                            39     51%

 Ethnic minorities                       17     22%

 Indigenous peoples                      17     22%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


3. The Preparation of Local Agenda 21 Action Plans

The local government survey asked the respondents to describe their
progress in producing a Local Agenda 21 action plan. Such an action plan is
viewed by the majority of participating local governments as the primary
product of the participatory planning process. The responses to this
question are presented in Box 5.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 5. Progress in Producing Local Agenda 21 Action Plans

Q: What is the status of your community's Local Agenda 21 or sustainable
development Action Plan. (Each respondent selected one of the following
responses.)
________________________________________

                      All  Developed      Developing Countries &
                           Countries      Economies-in-Transition

 Has already
 produced an Action   38%  37%            43%
 Plan.

 Committed to
 produce one by the   34%  35%            19%
 end of 1996.

 Committed to
 produce an Action
 Plan by some later   11%  10%            14%
 date.

 Intention to
 produce an Action
 Plan, but details    14%  15%            14%
 not decided.

 Not yet decided if
 we will produce an   3%   3%             0%
 Action Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The reason that preparation of action plans in developing countries and
economies-in-transition might be slightly more advanced is that action
plans in these communities are more focused on addressing short-term needs.
The legitimacy of Local Agenda 21 in these countries appears to be
dependent on the timely completion of planning activities and the start of
concrete action. This hypothesis is supported by the survey responses to a
question about the term of the action plans, which are presented in Box 6.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 6. The Time Horizon of Local Agenda 21 Action Plans

Q: What time horizon best describes how your local authority is setting
solutions for your Action Plan?
________________________________________

                All Developed        Developing Countries &
                    Countries        Economies-in-Transition

 Next year      4%  2%               14%

 Next 2 years   10% 11%              7%

 Next 3 years   8%  3%               29%

 Next 4 years   5%  3%               14%

 Next 5 to 10
 years          32% 34%              22%

 Next 10 to 25
 years          20% 23%              7%

 Next 25 to
 100 years      4%  3%               7%

 Don't know at
 this time      8%  10%              0%

 No answer      9%  11%              0%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The responses indicate that Local Agenda 21 processes in developing
countries and economies-in-transition often are focused on short-term
results. Efforts in developed countries seem to be better positioned to
address one of the key challenges of sustainable development
planning--consideration of the long-term impacts of development and the
ability to sustain healthy social, environmental and economic conditions
over long periods of time.

4. The Implementation of Local Agenda 21 Action Plans

Thirty-three of the surveyed local governments that have completed action
plans--most of which are from developed countries--provided greater details
about the measures that they are taking to ensure the implementation of
their action plans. The responses are presented in Box 7.

These responses illustrate the commitment of local governments to change
their existing policies and practices to implement and comply with the
Local Agenda 21 action plans that have been prepared in partnership with
local stakeholders.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 7. Implementation Measures for Local Agenda 21 Action Plans

Q: If you have completed your Local Agenda 21 or other sustainable
development Action Plan, which of the following does it include? (33
respondents. More than one response was allowed.)
________________________________________

                                                             Total Percent

 Concrete measurable targets                                 24    73%

 Formal relationships to the statutory plans of the local
 authority such as the municipal development plan, land use  21    64%
 plan, transportation plan etc.

 Indicators of other mechanisms to evaluate changing
 conditions                                                  18    55%

 An internal management system in the municipality to
 ensure compliance                                           13    39%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


IV. Analysis of Survey Results

A. The Role of National and Regional Local Agenda 21 Campaigns

The ICLEI/DPCSD survey indicates that the magnitude of response to Chapter
28 was primarily achieved through the mobilization of existing capacities
in the local government community; namely, through the independent
contributions of national and international associations of local
government.

A close review of survey findings shows that Local Agenda 21 activities are
most advanced where these associations have established national or
regional campaigns. As of December 1996 national municipal association
campaigns were underway in eight countries--Australia, Denmark, Finland,
Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In
addition, national governments had established campaigns in Bolivia, China
and Japan. These eleven campaigns involve 82% of the total documented Local
Agenda 21 planning efforts. As of the same date, new national campaigns
were being established in the following additional countries: Brazil,
Colombia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Malawi, Peru, South Africa, and the
United States. These countries account for an additional 6% of the total
documented Local Agenda 21 efforts.

National associations of local government have been able to enlist hundreds
of local authorities to begin Local Agenda 21 planning because of their
established legitimacy with local government leaders and their
institutional capacity to provide country-specific training and technical
support. A typical national campaign is overseen by a multi-stakeholder
national steering committee that is staffed by the national association.
The campaign manages a recruitment effort, prepares guidance materials,
organizes training workshops, operates special projects on activities like
indicators development, and liaises with the central government. A more
detailed description of a national campaign can be found in Box 8. Parallel
and often in service to these national campaigns, international
associations of local government have established regional Local Agenda 21
campaigns. The European Campaign for Sustainable Cities & Towns is a joint
effort of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, EuroCities,
ICLEI, and the United Towns Organization, financially supported by the
European Union. Since its establishment in 1994, the European Campaign has
recruited 281 cities and towns to establish a Local Agenda 21 planning
process. The Campaign facilitates experience sharing among these
communities through a best practice database, a recognition program, and
biennial congresses. The most recent congress, hosted by the City of
Lisbon, Portugal in October 1996, attracted more than 1,000 participants
from 37 countries. ICLEI is currently establishing similar campaigns in
Africa and Latin America.

The ICLEI/DPCSD survey indicates that the primary types of support provided
to local authorities by national campaigns (in the order of prevalence) are
1) information, 2) support materials and tools, 3) training, 4) seminars,
5) exchanges and 6) seed money.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 8. The Anatomy of a National Campaign--The Case of the United Kingdom
________________________________________

The United Kingdom (UK) Local Agenda 21 National Campaign was established
in 1993 by the UK's five local authority associations--the Association of
District Councils, the Association of County Councils, the Association of
Metro Authorities, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and the
Association of Local Authorities in Northern Ireland. The establishment of
the Campaign followed the participation of these associations in the UK's
national delegation to UNCED. Since then, the Campaign has recruited more
than 60% of the UK's local authorities to commit to a Local Agenda 21
planning process. The Campaign has also served as an organizational model
for the creation of Local Agenda 21 campaigns across the world.

The first step in the creation of the Campaign was the establishment of a
Steering Committee, made up of senior local elected officials, to govern
the Campaign's activities. The Steering Committee recruited the Local
Government Management Board (LGMB)--a technical agency of the local
authority associations--to serve as the Campaign secretariat. Recognizing
the multi-sector and partnership-building approach to Local Agenda 21, the
voluntary membership of the Steering Group was soon broadened to include
senior representatives of environmental NGOs, the business sector, women's
groups, the educational sector, academia, and trade unions.

For their first task, the Steering Group defined the substantive elements
of Local Agenda 21 in the UK context, recognizing the need to implement
these elements differently according to local circumstances. The first two
focus on the internal operations of local authorities: 1) managing and
improving municipal environmental performance 2) integrating sustainable
development into municipal policies and activities. The other four focus on
the local community: 3) awareness-raising and education, 4) public
consultation and participation, 5) partnership-building, 6) measuring,
monitoring and reporting on progress towards sustainability.

The Campaign then developed manuals, tools, pilot projects and seminars to
assist local authorities to take action in each of these areas. The
Campaign has published a Step-by-Step Guide to Local Agenda 21 and a
variety of guidance documents on specific aspects of Local Agenda 21
planning, such as greening economic development. A monthly newsletter is
published and a national database on Local Agenda 21 has been established.

Since 1994 the Steering Group has commissioned annual surveys of Local
Agenda 21 activities. The January 1997 survey revealed that the respondents
are doing the following:

   * 42% --committed to making changes in their operations to undertake
     Local Agenda 21.,
   * 24%--committed to complete their sustainable development strategies
     (Action Plans) in 1996,
   * 44%--planning to produce their sustainable development strategies in
     the future year,
   * 39%--appointing new staff to support Local Agenda 21 planning,
   * 93%--establishing forums, roundtables or working groups to involve
     their communities,
   * 13%--had established an environmental management system with 37%
     considering it,
   * 50%--had started work on a State of the Environment Report , and
   * 53%--were developing indicators for sustainable development.

In summary, through the UK Local Agenda 21 Campaign the UK local authority
associations have 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.

   * Source: ICLEI (1996) in Gilbert et al, Making Cities Work: The Role of
     Local Authorities in the Urban Environment, Earthscan Publications,
     London.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


B. Different Approaches in Developing and Developed Countries

The detailed descriptions of Local Agenda 21 activities provided by the
local government survey represent a sample of only four percent of the
Local Agenda 21 planning processes identified by the national/regional
survey. Nevertheless, the accuracy and representativeness of these
descriptions were confirmed by interviews with national and regional Local
Agenda 21 campaigns as well as Local Agenda 21 international support
programmes.

The national/regional survey reveals that Local Agenda 21 planning
currently is more prevalent in developed countries. This may arise from the
fact that LGOs from these countries were able to participate in UNCED
process, and were therefore able to rapidly disseminate information about
Local Agenda 21 in their countries. Of perhaps greater importance is the
fact that local governments in developed countries have tended to adapt
existing environmental planning procedures (that may not exist in their
developing country counterparts) for Local Agenda 21 purposes. This may
explain the tendency in developed countries to focus Local Agenda 21
planning on environmental sustainability.

For example, a 1996 survey by the UK Local Government Management Board of
Local Agenda 21 activities in 297 UK local authorities documents the
environmental focus of those efforts, but also reveals a growing interest
in using the Local Agenda 21 process to address other issues. The majority
of these survey respondents indicated that sustainable development
principles were having a significant influence on energy, waste, land use
and environmental policies and strategies. By comparison, the same survey
group reported that sustainable development principles were having a minor
influence in the municipality's strategies and policies for poverty
alleviation, tourism, housing services, and economic development and health
strategies.3

While the number of Local Agenda 21 processes in developing countries and
economies-in-transition is still small, the establishment of national
campaigns and the growing support for Local Agenda 21 planning from donor
agencies could produce a rapid increase in Local Agenda 21 planning in the
developing world. This likelihood is supported by the tendency of local
governments in these countries to use Local Agenda 21 planning to address
immediate development or service needs.

C. Obstacles to Local Agenda 21 Planning

In counterpoint to forces that are facilitating the spread of Local Agenda
21 planning, both the national/regional survey and the local government
survey asked respondents to identify obstacles to starting or implementing
a Local Agenda 21 process. In the national/regional survey, the responding
NCSDs, national governments, and LGOs listed lack of financial support,
lack of information, and lack of expertise as the three major obstacles.
This response implies that NCSDs, national governments and LGOs need
greater assistance to establish national campaigns. In this past, such
assistance has been provided by international LGOs, such as ICLEI, and
international assistance programmes, such as the UNDP Capacity 21
Programme. These activities will need to be expanded to overcome the
obstacles to national campaigns in many countries.

The respondents to the local government survey listed lack of financial
support, lack of community consensus to set priorities, lack of support
from national governments, and lack of information as their major
obstacles. Local governments would appear to be seeking the financial
assistance of national governments and the technical assistance of national
campaigns. At the same time, case study analysis indicates that local
governments only succeed in Local Agenda 21 planning where a cooperative
social and political climate exists. Follow-up interviews indicated that
the implementation of Local Agenda 21 action plans will require support in
the form of national government policy reform in addition to the support
that governments may be providing through national campaigns.

D. Local Agenda 21 Impacts, 1992-1996

The ICLEI/DPCSD survey was unable to evaluate the local-level impacts of
Local Agenda 21 planning activities. For this purpose, ICLEI undertook a
detailed, comparative review of local practice through the documentation
and evaluation of 29 case studies.4 The primary conclusion of this case
study review is that the greatest impact of Local Agenda 21 during its
first years has been to reform the process of governance at the local level
so that the key requirements of sustainable development can be factored
into local planning and budgeting.

As is illustrated by the case of Cajamarca, Peru (Box 9), the
implementation of the Local Agenda 21 process requires local governments to
decentralize governance, reform their current departmental structures, and
change traditional operational procedures. Most Local Agenda 21 efforts
started by creating new organizational structures to implement planning. On
the one hand, new stakeholder planning bodies are created to coordinate
community-wide involvement and partnership formation for sustainable
development. On the other hand, local governments institute internal
reforms, such as the creation of interdepartmental planning units or the
establishment of neighborhood or village-level government units.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 9. Local Agenda 21 in Cajamarca, Peru
________________________________________

The Provincial Municipality of Cajamarca, Peru ranks among the poorest
communities in the world. In 1993, the infant mortality rate was 82% higher
than the Peruvian national average, and was 30% higher than the average for
the world's low income countries. The Province's main river has been
polluted by mining operations and untreated sewage. Farming on the steep
Andean hillsides, overgrazing, and cutting of trees for fuel has resulted
in severe soil erosion.

In 1993, the Mayor of Cajamarca initiated an extensive Local Agenda 21
planning effort for the Province. This effort had two main components. The
first was a dramatic decentralization of the provincial government so that
local 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" (MPCs), each with their own elected Mayors and Councils.
The Provincial Council was reconstituted into a body with 48 Mayors from
the MPCs, 12 Cajamarca City Mayors, 12 District Mayors, and the Provincial
Mayor.

The second element of the initiative is the creation of a Provincial
Sustainable Development Plan. An Inter-Institutional Consensus Building
Committee was established with representation from the Province's different
jurisdictions, NGOs, private sector, and key constituency groups. Six
"Theme Boards" were established under this Committee 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.
These Theme Boards were charged with creating a strategic plan for their
respective areas. Training workshops were held in the new local authorities
to gather local input, and educational notebooks were prepared for the
local Mayors to use in discussing proposals and ideas with their
constituents.

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.

Since that time, the Theme Boards have continued their work, raising funds
and creating partnerships to implement the Plan. Projects have included
provision of potable water, sanitation, environmental education, and rural
electrification. In total, the Local Agenda 21 process has mobilized more
than US $21 million for sustainable development activities since 1993.

   * Source: The Provincial Municipality of Cajamarca and UNDPCSD/ICLEI,
     The Role of Local Authorities in Sustainable Development, New York,
     April, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


These activities generally consume the first years of the Local Agenda 21
planning. Such institutional reforms may not immediately produce concrete
improvements in development or environmental conditions. Nevertheless, they
are changing the fundamental approaches and policy focus of hundreds of
local governments. As a result, these local governments are becoming more
open, more participatory, and more dedicated agents of the sustainable
development agenda.

In some cases--primarily in those communities that started work prior to
1992--local governments have reached the stage in the process where they
are implementing their Local Agenda 21 action plans. The case of Kanagawa
Prefecture, Japan, (Box 10) illustrates the extent to which these plans can
have an impact on local investment decisions. The Kanagawa Agenda 21
involves 52 projects being implemented with a US$ 149 million budget.

In developing countries, implementation tends to begin by addressing a few
priority problems. In this way, the Local Agenda 21 is used to produce some
near-term impacts. For instance, the Local Agenda 21 effort in Quito,
Ecuador is focusing on the stabilization and restoration of the many
ravines in that city's low income South Zone. Local Agenda 21 efforts in
Pimpri Chinchwad, India are focusing on slum upgrading. In Jinja, Uganda
efforts are focused on solid waste management.

Regardless of these examples, an evaluation of the long-term impacts of
Local Agenda 21 planning would be premature at this time. Even in countries
where Local Agenda 21 is most established, these impacts are just beginning
to be documented. For instance, the 1996 Local Agenda 21 survey for UK
local governments assessed the impacts of Local Agenda 21 planning in 13
topic areas. The respondents reported that Local Agenda 21 was having a
medium impact on local "resource use" and a small impact on "empowerment,"
"limiting pollution," "biodiversity" and beautification of living areas,
while little impact was reported in such areas as "meeting basic needs,"
"living without fear," and "satisfying work."5

Another area of uncertainty is the potential impact of Local Agenda 21
action plans on the global objectives of Agenda 21. Of necessity, a Local
Agenda 21 must address established local priorities. While Local Agenda 21
action plans in rich countries tend to include actions on issues such as
climate change and the protection of biodiversity, these issues may not
receive much attention in communities of the developing world. This being
said, most documented Local Agenda 21 processes have, at a minimum,
educated local residents about Agenda 21 and the linkages between local and
global problems.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Box 10. 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 US$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.

   * Source: Kanagawa Prefecture and UNDPCSD/ICLEI, The Role of Local
     Authorities in Sustainable Development, New York, April, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


V. Recommendations and Conclusions

The Local Agenda 21 movement launched during the preparatory process for
the UN Conference on Environment and Development has become one of UNCED's
most extensive follow-up activities. In the years that have passed since
the adoption of Agenda 21, national governments and international agencies
have placed increasing emphasis on the critical role of cities and towns in
the global sustainable development agenda. This emphasis was reflected at
the Second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), whose Habitat
Agenda, paragraph 157 states that the United Nations system should:

(f) encourage the involvement of all interested parties at the local level
in the formulation of agreements and local measures, programmes and actions
necessary to implement and monitor the Habitat Agenda...including inter
alia Local Agenda 21 processes as mandated by the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development.

The ICLEI/DPCSD survey highlights that the continued growth of the Local
Agenda 21 movement and it effectiveness in achieving lasting impacts--as
well as the implementation both Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda--could be
supported through the following activities.

Recommendation #1.

   * Provide support for national Local Agenda 21 campaigns.

The survey's findings demonstrate that the mechanism of the national
campaign--formally endorsed and financially supported by the national
government--has been the most powerful catalyst of Local Agenda 21
planning. While national governments have played an important facilitating
role in the establishment of these campaigns, the survey documents the
central role that has been played by local government organizations as the
managers of these campaigns.

While international agencies and national governments have supported pilot
Local Agenda 21 activities in individual cities, LGOs have used these
individual models to generate a true national movement involving hundreds
of local governments. The results of the survey highlight the importance of
operating national Local Agenda 21 campaigns through a national municipal
association or other LGO, rather than as a traditional international
technical assistance programme. At the same time, the most successful Local
Agenda 21 campaigns are governed by representatives from a wide variety of
stakeholders. In essence, successful national campaigns apply the same
multi-stakeholder approach that is used for Local Agenda 21 planning at the
local level.

Recommendation #2.

   * Make national and international investment and development assistance
     programmes responsive to Local Agenda 21 action plans.

The extensive commitment of local governments to the implementation of
Agenda 21 has led many observers to conclude that Agenda 21 can be fully
implemented through local-level activities. The ICLEI/DPCSD survey does not
substantiate this conclusion. The local government survey identified a
number of obstacles to Local Agenda 21 planning and, in specific, to the
implementation of Local Agenda 21 action plans. National governments and
the United Nations system cannot assume that local governments will be
successful in implementing their Local Agenda 21 action plans without
considerable national and international assistance.

Towards this end, national governments and international development
assistance institutions should review their current procedures for
selecting development assistance projects. Local Agenda 21 action plans
provide these institutions with a menu of local projects that are designed
according to local priorities and needs, and are supported by local
stakeholders. Cases from the field demonstrate that national and
international investment and development assistance programmes often
overlook these local action plans during the preparation and design of
local development projects. The result in some communities has been
duplication of effort and competition between external programmes and Local
Agenda 21 activities, thus undermining the Local Agenda 21 processes.
Caution should be taken to avoid such circumstances. Similar caution needs
to be taken by private sector investors.

The implementation of Agenda 21 would be facilitated if national and
international programmes adjusted their procedures and project cycles so as
to focus their investments on the implementation of the Local Agenda 21
action plans that have been prepared through extensive consultation and
analysis at the local level.

Recommendation #3.

   * Create a supportive national policy and fiscal framework for the
     implementation of Local Agenda 21 Action Plans.

In addition to external financial assistance, the successful implementation
of Local Agenda 21 action plans in most countries will require the
establishment of a supportive national-level policy framework as well as
the improvement of fiscal conditions at the municipal level. While local
governments and their local partners have a variety of mechanisms to
influence local consumption, development, and resource management, these
mechanisms are often undermined by national policies and economic
arrangements. For example, local water conservation programmes are not
likely to succeed if national governments maintain water subsidies that
promote consumption and waste. Similarly, local governments may be able to
reduce noxious emissions from automobiles by reducing private vehicle use,
but only national governments can eliminate lead from gasoline or increase
vehicle fuel efficiency standards.

Many similar examples of the need for national governments to support local
sustainable development initiatives can be cited. Therefore, the
preparation of a special report by the DPCSD is recommended to identify
hindering conditions and the alternative supportive measures that national
governments can take for Local Agenda 21 implementation. As a first step,
such a report could focus on the reforms and measures required at the
national level to support local-level action in the area of key
international conventions, such as the conventions for protection of the
seas, waste management, climate change, biodiversity etc. In each of these
areas, the report would review the regulatory frameworks, economic
incentives and disincentives, and municipal financial mechanisms that would
enable effective local implementation of Agenda 21.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the local government community remains committed to the
implementation of Agenda 21. Having renewed the United Nations' commitment
to the Local Agenda 21 process at the UN Conference on Human Settlements,
local government organizations are preparing for the expansion of the Local
Agenda 21 movement. The continued growth of this movement will require that
new resources for Local Agenda 21 planning are deployed in keeping with the
principles of Local Agenda 21 itself; that is, in partnership with the
national, regional and international associations of local government that
initiated Local Agenda 21 and that have made it such a success for the
United Nations and for a growing number of cities and towns throughout the
world.

Finally, Agenda 21 will never be achieved through planning alone. The
ability of the Local Agenda 21 movement to achieve real, positive impacts
on social and environmental conditions will require the establishment of
supportive national government frameworks in each country for local
sustainable development.


              Annex 1. International Support Programmes

A. United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)/United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP)

The joint UNCHS/UNEP Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) was the first major
international support programme for Local Agenda 21-styled planning.
Established by UNCHS in 1990, before the Local Agenda 21 effort was
mandated by UNCED, the SCP promotes a broad-based, participatory process
for the development of a sustainable urban environment, emphasizing
cross-sectoral coordination and decentralization of decision-making.

At the local-level the SCP acts as a technical cooperation programme, using
carefully planned and structured city demonstration projects to strengthen
the capacities and abilities of the participating local authorities and
their partners in the public, private and community sectors. The focus of
this technical support is environmental planning and management (EPM), for
which purpose the SCP has developed a distinct EPM planning approach. The
EPM approach is being continuously developed and refined to reflect local
experiences and needs.

SCP city demonstration projects have been implemented in eleven
cities--Accra, Concepciu`n, Dakar, Dar Es Salaam, Ibadan, Ismailia,
Katowice, Madras, Tunis, Shenyang and Wuhan. In Chile, Egypt and Tanzania,
plans are in place to replicate the demonstration projects in other cities.

The SCP actively facilitates the exchange of experience and expertise in
EPM at the regional and international levels.

The Localising Agenda 21 programme was launched by UNCHS during the
preparatory process for Habitat II to support selected towns in Kenya,
Morocco, and Viet Nam. In translating the human settlements components of
Agenda 21 into concrete local action, the programme works on stimulating
joint venture initiatives between local authorities, the private sector and
community groups in the formulation and execution of broad-based
environmental action plans.

The programme works by focusing 70% of its activity on one priority town in
each country with the other 30% of the activity shared among partner towns.
In the priority towns, the programme strategy includes: awareness building
through conducting broad-based workshops to reach consensus on priority
areas for action, capacity building, development of tools to support
implementation of pilot action plans, and the exchange of information and
experiences with other towns facing similar problems.

Contacts

Mr. Jochen Eigen, Coordinator
Sustainable Cities Programme
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)
P.O. Box 30030
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-623225
Fax: +254-2-624264
Email: jochen.eigen@unchs.org

Mr. Raf Tuts, Programme Manager
Localising Agenda 21
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)
P.O. Box 30030
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-2-623726
Fax: +254-2-624265
Email: r.tuts@unep.no


B. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Two UNDP programmes, in particular, support Agenda 21 planning activities
at the local-level. These are the Capacity 21 Programme and the Local
Initiatives for the Urban Environment (LIFE) Programme.

The LIFE Programme was established in 1992 as a follow-up to UNCED with the
specific purpose of providing direct, small-grant assistance to local
sustainable development projects. The Programme catalyses national
dialogue, sets strategies and mobilizes country support, and identifies and
supports collaborative small-scale projects. In addition to the LIFE
Programme's local grant support, the Programme has also provided support
funding to international city networks to disseminate experiences and
promote Local Agenda 21.

The small-grants process is administered through national coordinators and
national selection committees consisting of representatives of central
government, local government organizations, NGOs and national experts in
sustainable development. Since 1993, the Programme has become active in 12
countries. Phase 2 of the Programme involves more than 150 small-scale
projects.

The Capacity 21 programme was launched in 1992, at UNCED, to help
developing countries to build their capacity to integrate the principles of
Agenda 21 into national planning and development, and to involve all
stakeholders in the process. The programme is working in 42 countries.
While the mandate of the programme is to work at the national level, more
recently national governments have been asking for assistance in using a
more decentralized approach, and in linking national and local level
strategies to implement Agenda 21.

Contact

Mr. Jonas Rabinovitch, Manager
Urban Development Team,
Management Development and Governance Division
Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, UNDP
One United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, U.S.A.
Fax: +212-906-6973


C. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)

ICLEI established its Local Agenda 21 Initiative in January 1991 for the
distinct purpose of establishing a local-level implementation process for
the forthcoming UN Agenda 21. During UNCED preparatory process, ICLEI
organized a series of three international meetings of local authority
representatives to design and obtain national government support for the
Local Agenda 21 effort.

Since the endorsement of Local Agenda 21 at UNCED, ICLEI has provided
research, technical and/or financial support to Local Agenda 21 planning
activities in 20 countries.

In 1994, ICLEI became a founding partner of the European Campaign for
Sustainable Cities & Towns. In 1996, ICLEI established the Local Agenda 21
Africa Network and the Local Agenda 21 Latin America Network. These
regional programmes are providing training, information exchange, grants,
and support to local authorities and to national municipal associations
wishing to establish national Local Agenda 21 campaigns.

ICLEI's Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Project, which was established in
1993, is an applied research project that works with 14 cities to test a
framework for sustainable development planning. This project, and a
parallel project in Central and Eastern Europe, have produced Local Agenda
21 planning guides that are presently being used for training and guidance
purposes in 31 countries.

Contact

ICLEI--Local Agenda 21
City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor
Toronto, Canada M5H 2N2
Tel: +1-416-392-1462
Fax: +1-416-392-1478
Email: iclei@iclei.org
Website: http://www.iclei.org


D. Other Local Agenda 21 Support Programmes

The Urban Environmental Guidelines Project of the German Agency for
Technical Cooperation (GTZ) has developed planning guidelines, support
tools, and training materials to support Local Agenda 21 activities. The
project provided financial and technical support to municipalities in
Thailand and Nepal to prepare urban environmental action plans.

The Rapid Urban Environmental Assessment Project of the Urban Management
Programme (World Bank/UNDP/UNCHS), has also developed planning guidelines,
support tools, and training materials to support Local Agenda 21
activities. The programme provided financial and technical support to seven
cities to test and implement an urban environmental assessment and
consultation process. In most instances, these activities served as the
foundation for further Local Agenda 21 planning activities.

The United Towns Development Agency (UTDA) has taken a Local Agenda 21
approach to sustainable development action planning in the MedCities
Project, launched in 1991. The project works with a network of 27
municipalities in the 18 countries bordering the Mediterranean to analyze
and address environmental problems in the Mediterranean Basin, through the
identification of common issues and sharing of experiences.

The Institute for Sustainable Communities (USA) has provided technical
support and training to nine local authorities in five countries--Bulgaria,
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovak Republic--to establish a
participatory urban environmental planning process.

In 1994, the World Association of Major Metropolises, the International
Union of Local Authorities, the United Towns Organization and the Summit
Meeting of the World's Major Cities ("Group of Four") published a guidance
document on Agenda 21 for Local Authorities. In 1995, ICLEI, the United
Towns Organization and the UN Department for Policy Coordination and
Sustainable Development jointly organized the "Local Authorities' Day" at
the 3rd Session of the UNCSD.

Contacts

German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) GmbH
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
Dag-Hammarskjuold-Weg 1-5
65760 Eschborn, Germany
Tel: +49-6196-79-0
Fax: +49-06196 79-1115

United Towns Development Agency (UTDA)
22, rue d'Alsace
92300 Levallois-Perret, France
Tel: +33-1-47-39-36-86
Fax: +33-1-47-39-36-85

Paul Markovitz, Program Director
Institute for Sustainable Communities
56 College St., Montrelier, Vermont, U.S.A. 05602
Tel: +1-802-229-6307
Fax: +1-802-229-2919
Email: ISC@iscvt.org


                                    Notes

  1. ICLEI (1992) Call for a Local Agenda 21 (Toronto, Local Environmental
     Initiatives (Toronto)).

  2. ICLEI/DPCSD/UNCHS (1995) The Role of Local Authorities in Sustainable
     Development (New York, UN Dept. for Policy Coordination and
     Sustainable Development).

  3. Tuxworth, B. et al (1997) Local Agenda 21 Survey 1996, Part 2:
     Reporting to the CSD (Luton, UK, Local Government Management Board),
     page 4.

  4. The cited cases are published separately in the following
     publications. ICLEI (1996) The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide
     (Toronto, ICLEI/IDRC/UNEP). ICLEI/DPCSD/UNCHS (1995) The Role of Local
     Authorities in Sustainable Development (New York, UN Dept. for Policy
     Coordination and Sustainable Development). ICLEI (1992-96) Case
     Studies Series, No. 6,10,14,21,28,29,30,31 (Toronto, Local
     Environmental Initiatives (Toronto)).

  5. Tuxworth, B. et al (1997) Local Agenda 21 Survey 1996, Part 2:
     Reporting to the CSD (Luton, UK, Local Government Management Board),
     page 7.


To order copies of this report (which include the original surveys) or for
more information on this report, please contact:

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
World Secretariat
City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2, Canada
Phone: +1-416/392-1462
Fax: +1-416/392-1478
Email: iclei@iclei.org
Internet Website: http://www.iclei.org


Contents copyright (c) 1997 ICLEI

 


This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.

Date last posted: 10 December 1999 17:25:35
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD