UEF-Euro >98 Results by Working Group ! Improving information for sustainable urban development ! Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches ! Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector ! Promoting transparency in urban environmental management ! Improving implementation through legal instruments ! Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness

UEF-Euro >98 - The Moscow Declaration

Round Tables organised in connection with World Environment Day ! Conclusions of the Round Table organised by the City of Moscow ! Conclusions of the Round Table organised by the K.E. Tsyolkovsky International Trustee Fund

Annexes ! Modalities and Structure of UEF-Euro >98 ! UEF-Euro >98 Agenda ! Opening and Closing Speeches ! Participant List

Please contact the Urban Environment Forum at:

The Urban Environment Forum Secretariat UNCHS/UNEP, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya Telephone: +254 2 62 3225; Fax: +254 2 62 3715 E-mail: [email protected] Visit the UEF Web Site at http://www.unchs.org/uef INTRODUCTION

UEF-Euro '98, the first regional meeting of the Urban Environment Forum, took place from 1 - 4 June, 1998. It was organised and supported by the UEF Secretariat of UNEP and UNCHS (Habitat), hosted by the City of Moscow and coincided with the World Environment Day celebrations on 5 June. During this very successful four day event, 600 participants took part in the opening and closing plenary sessions and 260 participants from 99 cities and 34 international support programmes came together in the working group sessions.

This report is intended to provide all partners in the Urban Environment Forum with a record of the intensive work that took place in Moscow during UEF-Euro '98. It is not possible to convey all that happened or to provide all the information that was discussed and exchanged during the meeting, nor is it possible to outline all the new partnerships forged and agreements reached among UEF partners new and old. Instead, this report contains more abstract and general discussions, results and conclusions of the sessions, in addition to concrete recommendations as reflected in the UEF-Euro '98 Moscow Declaration.

UEF-Euro '98 was also part of a series of events leading up to the United Nations Environment Programme=s global World Environment Day '98 celebrations taking place in Moscow on June 5. Another part of the events leading up to WED >98 was a number of "round tables" on urban related issues organized by the City of Moscow, and we are pleased to include summaries of their conclusions in this report as well.

UEF-Euro '98, page 2 WHAT IS THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT FORUM (UEF)?

The UEF is a loose global coalition of development practitioners centrally concerned with urban environmental management. Being defined by shared concerns and purpose - and not by institutional linkages - the UEF is genuinely a >forum=, which exists only to facilitate the ability of its members, individually and collectively, to achieve these purposes. The UEF reflects a paradigm shift in technical cooperation, away from a north-south flow of ready solutions and towards the advancement of collective know-how and cooperation and partnerships among city practitioners world-wide.

The Urban Environment Forum evolved during a lengthy process of meetings, research, discussions, and exchanges which began in late 1994 as a project to formulate an Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) Guidebook. The increasingly enthusiastic response and participation of cities, however, gave the process a >life of its own=. Activities steadily increased, including international workshops in Dakar, Senegal (June 1995) and in Madras, India (February 1996), and the production (April 1996) of the initial draft of the EPM Guidebook. To respond to and build upon this tremendous energy and interest, it was agreed to hold a large-scale global meeting, to consider broader ways of moving forward.

Thus in June 1996, a special meeting on >Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda= was held as a special event of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements - Habitat II (Istanbul, Turkey). More than 250 representatives from over 75 cities and 20 international support programmes participated in the meeting, the results of which were synthesised into the >Istanbul Manifesto=. Reflecting the strong support of those participating, the Istanbul Manifesto established the Urban Environment Forum to be the concrete global mechanism through which cities and international support programmes could continue to exchange experiences, learn from one another, and collaborate in addressing urban environmental issues worldwide. In addition, the Manifesto affirmed the basic EPM framework, as developed over the previous several years and presented in the draft EPM Guidebook, as the unifying analytical framework through which diverse experiences of UEF members would be brought together.

Following the Istanbul meeting, the Urban Environment Forum began to take shape through the revision and fine-tuning of the approach developed in the EPM Guidebook, and the consolidation of the new Urban Environment Forum. Information and feed-back from the Istanbul meeting, along with yet more city case studies, were fed into the revision process - and in the Spring of 1997, Volume One of the EPM Source Book, >Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda=, was published. Meanwhile, lines of communication were established to link UEF members together and plans were made to hold the first global meeting of the Urban Environment Forum. After an intensive period of organisational work, preparations were complete, and in early October 1997, on World Habitat Day, UEF >97 opened in Shanghai.

UEF-Euro '98, page 3 UEF >97 - A BRIEF OVERVIEW

UEF >97 brought together 300 representatives from 80 cities and 40 international support programmes, and their efforts throughout the meeting embodied the new development cooperation paradigm which emphasizes mutual learning, partnership and the sharing of experiences for advancing collective know-how.

City reports and international support programme presentations at this global meeting were structured in a way that followed the integrating analytical framework agreed in Istanbul and elaborated in the EPM Source book. These sessions provided a thought provoking and encouraging view of the work being done at the city level and of the new ideas and approaches being developed. Two topics of special interest, monitoring progress and leveraging resources, were presented, assessed, reviewed and analysed, revealing a number of interesting and novel approaches which were thought to have greater potential applicability. At UEF >97, Volumes 2 and 3 of the EPM Source Book were formally launched, completing publication of the full three- volume set documenting the background, main principles and future visions for the Urban Environment Forum.

A session devoted to the future direction and activities of the UEF resulted in a structure of global meetings every second year, with regional meetings in the intervening years. These regional meetings - which could be organized on a topic basis - provide the mechanism through which a wide variety of interests and views are identified, mobilised and brought into the Forum. The diverse insights resulting from these meetings will then be gathered together and integrated in the biannual global meeting, using the unifying analytical framework of the EPM Source Book, to advance the understanding of and ability to respond to the environmental challenges faced by cities world-wide.

It was understood that the success of the UEF derives largely from the fact that the UEF defines itself by emerging shared purposes rather than pre-conceived institutional structures. Accordingly there was general agreement to allow the UEF to continue on its path of self- realization through progressive clarification and articulation of these shared purposes, rather than super-imposing a formal institutional structure. However, to provide essential continuity, to support the developing information exchange and especially to give the minimum logistical support in preparation and reporting of the global meetings, a secretariat function is necessary. The Sustainable Cities Programme (of UNCHS and UNEP) which supported the launching of the UEF, provided secretariat services since the Istanbul meeting, and coordinated preparations for the Shanghai Meeting, offered to continue in this role. The offer was gratefully accepted by the participants.

Representatives of UNCHS (Habitat) and UNEP reconfirmed the commitment of their organizations to support the UEF. An important achievement towards global partnership in urban environmental management, the UEF was described as the type of initiative in which the UN system can play a facilitating and catalytic role in mobilizing an ever-widening range of actors and participants, helping to focus our collective energy and know-how towards concrete improvements in the quality of life - and sustainability - of human settlements everywhere.

UEF-Euro '98, page 4 UEF-EURO >98 - WHAT HAPPENED IN MOSCOW?

UEF-Euro >98, the first European regional meeting of the Urban Environment Forum, took place from 1 - 4 June, 1998. It was organized and supported by the UEF Secretariat of UNEP and Habitat, and hosted by the City of Moscow. This four day event brought together 260 participants from 99 cities and 34 international support programmes in particular those from the European region. It offered all participants a gateway to new partnerships with international development practitioners and decision makers from Russia, CIS countries, Europe, OECD countries and the world.

UEF-Euro >98 was organized as one of a series of events leading up to the global World Environment Day celebrations taking place in Moscow on June 5. UEF-Euro >98 participants joined the WED >98 activities, and their participation underlined the importance of the urban environment for sustainable development and highlighted the commitment of the Urban Environment Forum to the improvement of the global environment.

Participants of other urban-related events and round table sessions which were organized by the City of Moscow to coincide with WED >98 were also present on June 5. This series of Around table@ sessions was comprised mostly of participants from Russian and CIS cities. Unfortunately, this meant that many of these people, who were present for the opening and closing sessions of the UEF-Euro >98 meeting as well as WED >98, were not with us in the working group sessions. However, we are pleased to include a summary of their conclusions and a list of the round table participants in this report.

CITIES AND PROGRAMMES DISCUSS EUROPEAN PRIORITY CONCERNS

Following Urban Environment Forum tradition, UEF-Euro >98 highlighted city experiences and concerns, reviewed the activities and achievements of international support programmes and promoted focused dialogue between urban practitioners worldwide. As at UEF >97, the meeting was tightly structured around a framework that reflected operational city practices and priorities, as agreed by the UEF in the Istanbul Manifesto and brought together in the EPM Source book.

UEF-Euro >98 also focused on concerns and activities specific to the European region, where a multitude of efforts to improve the quality of urban life are taking place in cities. The meeting brought new partners to the UEF, from both cities and international support programmes in Europe and CIS countries and actively focused on bridging the conceptual gap between urban environmental management approaches in the north and south and the east and west. This led to a deeper understanding of what cities and programmes are doing and a better understanding of the positive role the United Nations plays in facilitating this process.

UEF-Euro '98, page 5 Working group discussions focused on shared concerns which closely related to the five basic concerns in a typical city agenda for improving the environment:

C Improving information for sustainable urban development C Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches C Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector C Promoting transparency in urban environmental management C Improving implementation through legal instruments C Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness

Each working group addressed operational experiences at four levels, beginning with the city level and moving through to the national, regional and global levels. A special effort was made to ensure that issues identified at the city level were developed and examined through to the global level, and that various actors were linked through the levels in order to enhance the complementarity, collaboration and collective efficiency of all the partners. Emphasis was placed on common approaches, complementarity among international support programmes and new partnerships.

Presentations were given on each of the topics at every level, sparking ideas and lively discussion from the participants. The results of these very productive working group sessions were synthesized in the Urban Environment Forum Moscow Declaration, a document which underlines the importance of the urban environment and its relationship to the priority topics which were discussed throughout the meeting. In the Moscow Declaration, participants committed themselves to actively participate in and support the UEF in developing initiatives, and recommended that new information sharing and exchange mechanisms be carefully designed to complement and strengthen existing ones.

The Urban Environment Bazaar, now a regular and successful feature of UEF meetings, played an important part in information sharing between programmes and cities. Information booths provided an opportunity for a wide range of international support programmes, and organizations from Russia, to publicise their activities and to meet with each other and with the many city representatives attending the meeting.

UEF-Euro >98 followed up on past UEF activities and provided a basis for future UEF activities, confirming UEF principles and purpose within a common conceptual framework, confirming the aims and modalities of regional and global activities and meetings within the overarching objective of implementing Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda, and forging new programme and city partnerships with new commitments and resources.

UEF-Euro '98, page 6 PARTICIPANTS RECOMMEND FUTURE UEF ACTION

The Moscow Declaration was created and accepted through the intensive and active participatory process of the UEF-Euro >98 meeting. The Moscow Declaration contains, along with agreed principles on the topics chosen for discussion, a number of concrete recommendations which will shape future directions of the UEF globally and provide the basis for follow-up in the European region. The major recommendations are listed in brief, by priority topic, below:

Improving information for sustainable urban development The UEF should assist ongoing information sharing by providing common methodologies and facilities for compiling, organising and selecting information. Regional meetings of the UEF are recommended as an effective means of facilitating information exchanges and building capacities for both generating and effectively utilising information.

Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches The UEF should support a continuing exchange of experiences in the field of broad-based participation and should contribute to the framing of indicators to measure progress in stakeholder involvement, including notably the mainstreaming of gender awareness. Further, the UEF should provide opportunities for strengthening the capacity of national associations of local governments to support their members= work in managing the urban environment.

Improving implementation through legal instruments The UEF should develop or facilitate access to databases of existing urban environmental policy instruments, including rules and regulations. Reference should be made to what has or has not worked, with a special emphasis on the underlying broad-based consensus building process.

Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector The UEF should expand and strengthen its cooperation with the private sector and its associations and promote their direct participation in both global and regional UEF activities.

Promoting transparency in urban environmental management UEF partners should establish an interest group to support local authorities in the formation of broad coalitions against corruption among public, private and community groups.

Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness The UEF should support the sharing of practical methods for promoting change through the raising of awareness, the dissemination of good practice and policy and the establishment of enabling frameworks.

In the Moscow Declaration, UEF participants committed themselves to actively participate in and support the UEF in developing these and other initiatives. They recommended further that new information-sharing and exchange mechanisms be carefully designed to complement and strengthen existing ones.

UEF-Euro '98, page 7 Progress and activities on these recommendations will be presented and reviewed during the global UEF meeting scheduled for October 1999.

Following the success of UEF-Euro >98, some UEF partners have already expressed an interest in pursuing follow-up action on one or the other of the priority topics. Any city or international support programme representative who is similarly interested in pursuing or instigating an activity in an area where they have a particular interest or strength are encouraged to advise the UEF Secretariat. The Secretariat will provide support, at a minimum, by helping interested parties to link up with one another. The global UEF >99 meeting will provide excellent opportunities for reporting back, for sharing experiences and gathering new information and for bringing new and interested partners into the various topic clusters.

UEF-Euro '98, page 8 UEF-EURO >98 RESULTS BY WORKING GROUP

Working group discussions at UEF-Euro >98 focused on themes closely related to the five basic concerns in a typical city agenda for improving the environment:

Working Group One C Improving information for sustainable urban development Working Group Two C Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches Working Group Three C Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector C Promoting transparency in urban environmental management Working Group Five* C Improving implementation through legal instruments Working Group Four C Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness

The working groups examined the themes in depth at four levels of activity: city, national, regional and global, keeping in mind that at all levels their shared concern remained with urban environment issues at the city level. Naturally, as the discussions moved through the levels, the topic and type of responsible actors changed. The aim was to show links among these actors in urban environmental planning and management at the various levels, so as to enhance complementarity, promote collaboration and ultimately improve the collective efficiency of all the participants.

The overwhelming majority of participants at UEF-Euro >98 were practitioners from cities or international support programmes who were in a position to make valuable contributions to the working groups. These contributions were comprised of tangible material and real-life experience which was discussed and analysed - yielding practical information which led to important insights and lessons of experience and which can be readily adapted and applied to real life problems.

The results and conclusions of these intensive working group sessions are summarized in this report and reflected in the UEF Moscow Declaration in the form of concrete recommendations. Unfortunately, it is not possible to convey all that happened or to provide all the information that was discussed and exchanged during the meeting, nor is it possible to outline all the new partnerships forged and agreements reached among UEF partners new and old. Instead, the following pages contain the working group results and conclusions in a more general and abstract way.

*The Working Group on AImproving Implementation through legal instruments@ was added to the agenda late and was therefore entitled AWorking Group Five@. In order to maintain the sequence of the topics, however, it will be reported on in the order outlined above.

UEF-Euro '98, page 9 WORKING GROUP ONE IMPROVING INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT Chairperson: Mr. Kogan, Academician, Moscow State University Facilitator: Mr. Doug McCallum, UEF Consultant

Working Group conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I have the pleasure of beginning a series of reports from the technical working groups with constituted the main activity of the Urban Environment Forum. As you know, the main activity and principle time of this UEF meeting was devoted to a series of working group sessions which proceeded in parallel. These sessions gave the opportunity for the participants to pursue particular topics in greater depth. We had intensive discussions, and this afternoon myself and my fellow facilitators will take this opportunity to report back to you with a very brief summary of what was done during those working group sessions.

Adequate information and technical expertise are essential for all stages of urban environmental planning and management: to help understand and prioritize environmental issues, to formulate environmental strategies, to successfully implement those strategies and to succeed and more effectively sustain change. Working Group One, therefore, focused on how we can improve the availability and useability of information and technical expertise - and on the effectiveness of its application to sustainable urban development. This led us to explore a wide range of important questions, which were examined at local, national, regional and global levels.

The Working Group benefited from very informative reports on the experiences of numerous cities, who both generate and use information, and of quite a lot of international support programmes, who are engaged in a variety of activities to help cities improve their access and utilisation of information and technical expertise. The number and range and scope of these support programmes is impressive, and collectively they represent a great potential for improving cities access to and utilisation of information. The role of the UEF in bringing together these programmes and linking them directly to the cities was particularly valued by the working group members. Certainly, the UEF should maintain and strengthen its activities in this specific respect.

Although new points and issues arose as the working group moved from local to national to regional and to global level discussions, there were many general points and conclusions which came up consistently during most or all of the discussions at all levels. These key points can be summarized briefly as follows, although time constraints prevent me from giving you the full rich detail of our discussion and results.

Inadequate or poor information leads to bad decisions and problems with implementation, and the Working Group members agreed unanimously that greater availability of relevant and useable information - especially about environmental management issues, is a priority need for cities. It was emphasized that in most city governments and indeed in most organizations generally, there are great problems of sharing information. Information exists, yes, often the very

UEF-Euro '98, page 10 information you need, but it is not made available from one department or group to another. We would certainly like to hear of successful methods which have been applied in cities around the world to try to overcome this very deeply entrenched culture of hoarding information.

However, even when information is shared, there are still problems with using it effectively. Is the information in a form or of a type which can be readily or effectively utilized? If not, then providing that extra information may be of very little use, and may only add to the chronic problem of Ainformation overload@. To be useful, therefore, information must be organized in a meaningful way which is appropriate to the user and to the specifics of its eventual use. This is an area of activity in which the UEF and its members could make a great contribution, by providing methodologies and techniques and facilities for not only accessing information but especially for helping to select, organize, synthesize and present this information in a way which makes it useable. For these reasons, it was also emphasized that information provision must remain demand-driven, reflecting and responding to the needs of the city users, and not simply reflecting the special interests of the particular programmes that may provide this information.

The numerous support programmes at the national, regional and global levels are rapidly expanding their activities, generally focusing on information generation and dissemination. Other lines of approach, such as promotion of networks of users, were strongly supported by our Working Group members. In particular, it would be useful to strengthen systems through which cities can directly support each other with knowledge from their own actual experiences in securing and applying information. It is interesting to note in this regard that some programmes are beginning to build up technically focused exchange between cities, in some cases between developed-country cities and cities in developing and transitional nations, and in some cases, among cities within nations.

It was also emphasized in our Working Group that in some cases the information which is needed can only be obtained locally, for instance by proper survey or monitoring of particular local situations. The role of support programmes in this case would be to assist with the necessary methodologies and training and skills, and to facilitate exchanges, again, so that cities can show other cities how they went about getting that kind of information.

Internet-based information systems have considerable potential, particularly because they are cheap, they are readily accessible for everyone, and up-to-date. On the other hand, using such electronic based systems requires computer equipment and skills, and often requires particular language skills given that the overwhelming bulk of information on the Internet originates in English. In addition, electronic media carries a real danger of information overload: of offering much more information than can be usefully or sensibly utilized. And this is a dilemma - there is a rich stock of information available, but how can it be accessed without extravagant use of time and energy in getting it? Helping to make systems like this more user relevant, and helping cities develop systems through which they can more effectively tap into Internet resources would be an appropriate and important task for the Urban Environment Forum to undertake.

Along with systems for making information available in electronic, paper or other forms, there is also the issue of making information available through technical expertise - availability and use of technical experts. This side of the questions received less attention from our Working Group, but many of the general points made above apply equally to expertise just as to information. For

UEF-Euro '98, page 11 instance, technical expertise also has to be understandable, has to be clearly relevant to the task and has to be provided at a level and in a manner which can be effectively absorbed and utilized. In other words, Aconsultant overload@ can be just as big a problem as information overload. National and regional networks were identified as being especially useful in helping cities with identifying and effectively utilizing suitable technical expertise, and examples from the programme which were given gave hope that there is great potential for developing this type of mechanism.

Finally, our Working Group recommended that the Urban Environment Forum could make an important contribution by organizing topic-specific meetings: meetings about specific substantive issues facing the cities. Meetings in which the technical information could then be assessed in depth. In this way, participating cities and programmes could work much more intensively and could really carry through to firm conclusions and results. In addition, regional meetings of the UEF were very strongly supported, and were recommended as a very effective means of facilitating information exchanges and building capacities for both generating and effectively utilizing information.

And with that I will conclude our summary, only adding that the members of our Working Group enjoyed an extremely productive if extremely busy two days, and for that opportunity we would like to thank the Urban Environment Forum and the City of Moscow.

UEF-Euro '98, page 12 WORKING GROUP TWO IMPROVING URBAN ENVIRONMENT DECISION-MAKING AND STRATEGIES THROUGH BROADER-BASED APPROACHES Chairperson: Mr. N. Moiseev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of UNEPCOM-Russia, President of the Green Cross Russian Branch Facilitator: Mr. Paul Bongers, International Relations Consultant, United Kingdom

Working Group conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

It is my pleasure to report on the work of Working Group Two. I will start by saying that, as we just heard, having access to good information is clearly vital, but this information also needs to be used properly through good and inclusive decision making processes. The involvement of stakeholders in the policy process is one of the fundamental tenants of Agenda 21. At the local level, the best Local Agenda 21 programmes represent a creative combination of the decision- making and implementation capacities of the local authority with the energy, imagination and initiative to be found at the grass roots.

Moves towards broader-based approaches are to be seen at all levels of policy making. For many years, there have been facilities to help NGOs make an input to the United Nations. More recently, spurred on by the openings provided by the Habitat II City Summit in Istanbul just two years ago, the international associations of local authorities have been seeking to establish a specific position for local government as a component part of the system of government of most of our member states in the relevant United Nations policy bodies. At the national level, law- making processes in some countries incorporate extensive prior consultation with local government associations and other stakeholders, as well as being open to lobbying action in parliament, but in too many others, laws are still passed without proper consultation with those who will have to carry them out on the ground, and they thus fail to achieve their objectives.

Our working group looked at the range of experiences in stakeholder involvement at the local, national and regional levels. At the local level, we focused on means of making decision-making and strategies more gender responsive. We heard of a wide diversity of approaches, designed to fit local needs, circumstances and cultures. In Hamburg, a small, high-powered group of women planners advises the city, in confidence, on the impact on women of plans being proposed. At the other extreme, a large number of very local consultative groups of women have been set up in Lusaka, Zambia, to advise the city on their community priority needs.

The concept of sustainability is indivisible, and women, as the prime producers and purchasers of food and the daily necessities of life, are by definition stakeholders in all aspects of urban development policy. To assist their empowerment, gender awareness must be mainstream in all policy areas. We therefore suggest that the UEF contribute to the development of indicators to measure progress in this and other aspects of stakeholder involvement. Naturally enough, the prime focus of participants has been on action at the local level, but they well recognize that the national framework and increasing, the international framework, in which cities operate, have a considerable influence on the way they work. In too many countries, the roles and responsibilities

UEF-Euro '98, page 13 of local government are not clearly defined, or are subject to constant change, and national governments impose an excessive degree of supervision over day-to-day decisions.

The principle of subsidiarity was underlined in the Working Group, along with the fundamental importance of the role and responsibilities of local government in sustainable urban development. As an aside, I=m glad to be able to report that moves are now underway, by the International Association of Local Authorities in partnership with UNCHS, to draw up a world charter of local self-government, which takes inspiration from the existing European Charter and will define the guiding principles for a democratic local government system. We hope that one day this will become a United Nations convention.

The other main focus of our Working Group was on stakeholder involvement in the growing activities of regional cooperation programmes addressing urban development issues. We heard presentations about the UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan and the associated MedCities network, the UN Economic Commission for Europe=s Environment and Human Settlements Programme, and the Southern Africa Development Community=s new programme on Urban Development. Encouragingly, all of these programmes are open to partnerships with local authorities, NGOs, and other stakeholders. A particularly positive example is the Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Development, focusing on the implementation of Agenda 21, which comprises, alongside all 21 of the coastal states, five representatives each of local government, NGOs and the private sector.

These institutionalized arrangements for local government and other stakeholder representation provide particularly good opportunities for reminding national governments of the commitments they all made in Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda. There was no hesitation in the group over the justification for local authorities involvement in these activities at the regional level. This was seen as a proper and relevant part of their political role as elected governments seeking to serve the needs of their people in the widest sense. The group saw the Urban Environment Forum as offering a valuable mechanism for promoting the interchange of ideas and experience between cities and the agencies responsible for these regional programmes, and also for productive exchanges between the programmes operating in different regions. The Rio Earth Summit and the Istanbul City Summit both emphasized the vital importance of partnership in the cause of sustainable development. This is now a precept to be found in many policy statements, and declarations at all levels. Yet, too often, actual practice lags far behind the rhetoric. In cities, as much as at the national and international levels, I hope this Forum will contribute to moving practice in the right direction and will provide ongoing opportunities for purposeful exchanges in this field. Thank you very much.

UEF-Euro '98, page 14 WORKING GROUP THREE IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR Chairperson: Mr. K. Norkin, Minister, Moscow City Government Facilitator: Mr. Boudoin de Selliers, Associate, Sustainable Project Management, Public Private Partnership Programme (PPPP), UNDP and Representative, Business Council for Sustainable Development

Working Group conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

Involving the private sector is another way to facilitate the implementation of urban environmental management. This was the subject that was addressed by Working Group Three. We had many very constructive contributions coming from international support programmes like USAID, MEIP and by a number of cities such as Dar es Salaam, Madras, St. Denis and, of course, Moscow. From that, we derived a number of priority concerns. The first one was the integration of urban environmental management with economic development. Another concern asked: what areas should the private sector be involved in? What areas should remain the exclusive domain of the public service? Such areas could be eduction. There was also a concern about the balance of private sector needs for adequate rates of returns, and the purchasing power of the poorest sections of society. Lack of information at the city level about the availability of support programmes, both international and local, was seen as a great problem. Cities do not know what is available and that hinders their effectiveness. Finally, a big question arose on how to involve the private sector in non-revenue generating urban environment activities.

We also learned a series of lessons. First of all, working with the private sector encourages a participatory rather than an advisory approach. It also builds bridges between the public and private sector and enables both to understand their respective needs and limitations. Private sector involvement will also help to leverage public sector resources, both financial and human. Private sector can also contribute know-how. This was illustrated by a USAID programme in Poland where the private sector help build the tools for municipalities to have access to financial markets. Private sector can also contribute its management expertise and its technology.

However, the private sector will only be willing to be involved and invest if it gets an adequate rate of return and if the environment is favorable for its operation. For that, there is a need for a clear regulatory and reasonable fiscal environment. There is also a need for more information about options for private sector involvement in public affairs - more options than simply outright privatisation. Finally, it became clear that the public sector should remain involved, to ensure that the public service aspect of urban services in maintained. This approach is recommended by the United Nations Development Programme, Public-Private Partnership Programme, and is actually implemented in the project development facility that UNDP has created.

We also identified a number of areas where the Urban Environment Forum could provide positive follow-up. The first one was preparation of case studies, to give examples of municipal and national laws, rules and regulations on private sector participation. Framework contracts on private sector involvement such as the ones that they have in France were also considered

UEF-Euro '98, page 15 very helpful. There is a need to show how others have managed to monitor the performance of the private sector and evaluate whether they have met what they were contracted to supply.

The Urban Environment Forum should also show how the private sector can contribute and what advantages it can derive from getting involved in non-revenue generating urban environment activities. These can be better access to financial markets, insurance and avoidance of non-tariff barriers to trade. Case studies should also show how you can reconcile the rate of return targets of industry with the need to supply urban services to the poorest segments of society. Success stories should be described to encourage duplication in other cities and countries. Conversely, failures should also be analysed so that other people don=t fall in the same trap.

The Urban Environment Forum should greatly reinforce its participation with the private sector and associations representing it such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. It should promote private sector participation in its global and regional activities. UEF should also develop a list of key contact people, a list of international support programmes and sources of regulatory, administrative and legal information. However, getting the private sector involved increases the risk of collusion, and therefore transparency in required through out the process. This issue was so prevalent during all sessions of the working group, that it will be the object of a separate presentation. Thank you.

UEF-Euro '98, page 16 WORKING GROUP THREE IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR SPECIAL SESSION TOPIC: PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Chairperson: Mr. K. Norkin, Minister, Moscow City Government Facilitator: Mr. Peter Eigen, Chairman, Transparency International, Berlin

Special Session conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

Ladies and gentlemen, indeed, we had a very exciting session under the chairmanship of Mr. Norkin, which dealt with corruption. In fact, it dealt with the question of how implementation can be improved by programmes for strengthening the transparency of urban management. This was a follow-up discussion, one of a series of discussions which began when the Urban Environment Forum invited Transparency International to join its discussion in Istanbul at Habitat II about improving the planning and development of sustainable cities. At this time, it was felt that the best tools for implementing excellent policies do not help if they are perverted by corruption. Therefore, we were there as an organization which deals with this particular issue, and I must say we are happy to have been invited here to give you a status report. If anything, we are more convinced than ever about the importance of this subject. We are firstly convinced, and this is what our group discussed with great vigour, that local urban management is particularly vulnerable to corruption. Whether you talk about New York, Moscow, Frankfurt, Berlin, Johannesburg or Mexico City, the municipal government is a particular target and AAchilles Heel@ for corruption. At the same time, it is clear, and this was confirmed by all participants at the meeting, that there is a growing consensus about the devastating impact of corruption. Devastating in terms of perverting the decision making process, perverting the management and in that sense undermining environmental policies and efforts to help the poorest of the poor, who are agglomerating in so many cities of the world today.

It has become quite clear that all the major actors in this arena understand that something must be done and can be done about corruption. Therefore, our working group focused very much on the lessons to be learned from the work done since this time. We spoke, for instance, about the efforts of the city of Budapest to deal in very concrete terms with corruption in its management. There, ideas were proposed and are being implemented now regarding a comprehensive diagnosis of the strengths and weaknesses of the integrity system of the city. A proposal has been made to improve urban decisions in public procurement, and decisions have been made about producing a Acookbook= against corruption which is fully and practically applicable to the workers of the municipality of Budapest. Similar experiences were reported about Buenos Aires, where information centres have been created to inform the people about the important events in the city.

In Zimbabwe, there was a regional conference for southern Africa where municipalities from Uganda and Zimbabwe gathered to compare their tools for fighting corruption. A long list they called The Charter for Establishing Transparency in Cities was distributed to the meeting

UEF-Euro '98, page 17 participants yesterday. There was a report about the request of the Mayor of Warsaw to start similar programmes in cities in Poland. There were extremely interesting reports from the City of Moscow. In fact, Chairman Norkin reported about the very high priority which is given by the Mayor of Moscow to fight corruption, and he described some of the tools being used in this host city. The Mayor of Amman gave a very interesting presentation of his dilemma in his country, and a number of other cities and programmes in cities, like Madras in India, Colombo in Sri Lanka and Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, were presented. We were all very much interested to hear from the Chief Prosecutor of the city of Berlin, who reported on the coordinated programmes and the involvement of the citizenry in Berlin in fighting what has become a major plague in this city.

Out of this discussion came a very interesting joint plan: that we should continue this work, that we should report regularly to the Urban Environment Forum and that we should create a joint steering committee that would meet regularly in order to back stop those cities willing to enter into a similar programme for transparency in urban management. A number of cities have made very concrete offers to join effort of this nature.

We hope very much that we will meet again, in one year, two years, perhaps in five years, in order to report to you even more concrete measures for fighting corruption at the municipal level and for improving the implementation of the development of sustainable cities. We also hope to report progress to you in the important objectives of poverty alleviation in urban areas and fighting destruction of the environment in our urban agglomerations. Thank you very much.

UEF-Euro '98, page 18 WORKING GROUP FIVE IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH LEGAL INSTRUMENTS Chairperson: Mr. O. Kolbassov, President of the Ecology Law Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences Facilitator: Ms. Bebet Gozun, National Programme Coordinator, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), Manila

Working Group conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

While very good strategies and action plans may have been developed in a highly participatory manner with the active support of all the stakeholders, in the end, all these mean nothing unless they get implemented. This has long been acknowledged to be one major weak aspect of environmental management. There are a range of implementation instruments and techniques, which can and have been used to ensure effective implementation of agreed upon broad-based actions. One such instrument, which our working group tackled, is the use of legal and other regulatory instruments.

Experience of the various cities and programmes participating in the UEF-Euro >98 meeting have shown that the implementation of environmental strategies and action plans are greatly facilitated if legal and regulatory instruments are established to provide the legal basis for such actions. At the same time, it is a means of institutionalizing environmental policies and procedures. Some cities and countries, like Maputo in Mozambique, have been constrained from taking action against industrial polluters, for example, simply because they have no existing legal instruments yet. Cases against polluters cannot be established by some due to the lack of environmental standards for emissions and effluents.

However, many of these legal instruments lose their legitimacy because the people who are supposed to follow them or even the local governments who may he tasked to implement these laws are not at all involved in the process of law making. The body agreed that this deficiency must be addressed to ensure that people understand what the law is all about and why it is being issued in the first place. This will elicit support, develop ownership and commitment and pave the way for voluntary compliance, and will therefore lessen the burden on enforcement by a usually already understaffed, under-resourced and over-stretched bureaucracy. Involving the stakeholders, the communities, NGOs, the private sector, the media and the local governments will also help ensure that the laws are appropriate and relevant. If they are not, then the people or the local government feel resentful or simply ignore them. Law making itself, be it local, national or global, should therefore be highly participatory.

On another level, this same principle applies to the legalization of the institutional arrangements for more cost-effective delivery of urban environmental services and implementation of environmental solutions. We saw this in the experience of the Katowice Agglomeration, where the 14 Local Government Units themselves saw the value of grouping together to form a Union so that together they could address the problems of development and the challenges of sustainable development as one. This led to the formalization of an informal clustering among local governments with a clear charter for the Union duly subscribed to by all the 14 member local authorities and ratified by their individual City Boards. This demand-driven agreement is surely

UEF-Euro '98, page 19 more binding than something that is imposed from the outside, which unfortunately was the case in the creation of the Metro Manila Commission.

On the other hand, passing these laws per se does not guarantee that the job will get done. The participants noted that while it is true that some countries and cities still lack basic environmental laws, rules and regulations, there are also many where the laws are there but they are not at all implemented. This situation highlights the need to also provide for other supporting mechanisms to ensure implementation. This includes the provision of sufficient resources and capability building mechanisms as well as the establishment of a system of monitoring and evaluation. Some mechanisms for resource mobilization must be looked into. We must also monitor and evaluate if the objectives for which the laws have been passed are being met and this monitoring and evaluation should then feed back into the planning and decision making process.

Actual experience of many cities and countries have also shown that reliance on a purely regulatory system alone is not enough. In fact, it has been proven that legal instruments work best if other implementation instruments such as economic incentives, strategic capital investments and public information complement them. Economic instruments are something that businesses understand and they react to this accordingly - much faster than they would with purely a command and control approach. For example, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was able to address industrial pollution by providing some economic incentives to the polluting industries, especially small and medium enterprises.

The value of public information and awareness raising cannot be underestimated. The participants realized that in many instances, regulatory and legal instruments require changes in people's behaviour and prescribe a particular behaviour. How can we expect this to happen when the people or sometimes, even the local governments, do not understand why a law is being passed? Or worse, when they do not even know that such a law exists? It has been said that the best law is one that does not need to be enforced. While this may be too ideal, we do know that implementation is greatly facilitated when the people understand why a particular law is needed and what they will benefit from following it. More attention should therefore be paid to social marketing.

Another issue that we looked into is the relationship of national laws, local laws, rules and regulations. With the growing decentralization and devolution of powers from central governments to local governments, how is this tension between national and local authorities being handled? Participating cities and programmes in our working group agreed that while there is a need for consistent application of environmental standards and law, there is also a need to allow for more flexibility at the local level. Taking into consideration the length of time it takes to pass national laws, it was our consensus that national laws should only be limited to providing the broad legal framework and that local authorities must be given the power to establish detailed implementing rules and regulations to respond to specific local conditions and changing needs.

Finally, it was observed that one must not resort to legal instruments right away. Actively involving the communities in the entire environmental planning and management process will not only develop a strong sense of local ownership and commitment but may in fact make the passage of a law or a regulation unnecessary. Social Pacts and social pressure may be enough. Such

UEF-Euro '98, page 20 has been the actual experience of Zambia and other cities participating in the Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP), the Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), the Urban Management Programme (UMP), and The Healthy Cities Programme.

To conclude, to improve implementation through legal instruments, the Urban Environment Forum should do the following:

C develop and facilitate access to data bases on all existing urban environmental management laws, rules and regulations;

C document and disseminate what and how various implementation instruments have worked or not worked; and

C put special emphasis on broad-based consensus building process to law making and social marketing.

Thank you.

UEF-Euro '98, page 21 WORKING GROUP FOUR SUPPORTING CHANGE THROUGH INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Chairman: Mr. A. Tetior, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Facilitator: Mr. H. Girardet, Sustainable Urban Development Author and Media Specialist. London

Working Group conclusions as reported by the Facilitator

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for inviting me here, and I would like to tell you the results of our working group. I shall link general observations and theoretical discussion with specific case studies.

Our working group was concerned with the convergence of environmental, economic and social sustainability throughout its deliberations. Participants reported that public awareness on sustainability issues is improved most effectively by imaginative information dissemination of factual issues, to the public as a whole or to specific groups, both by the media and public bodies. Shared public awareness campaigns by local government, NGOs and the media are the most effective change process, but this convergence is often difficult to achieve.

In Rotterdam it was found that it is easier to motivate people to concern themselves with environmental matters by addressing their own personal concerns rather than by attempting to focus on global issues. Reducing traffic congestion has become the major theme of public policy. Only by offering people very practical public transport alternatives as well as innovative bicycle parking facilities were people prepared to give up the routine use of the motor car.

The Singapore Green Plan, we were told, aims for high standards of public health, clean air, land, water and a quiet living environment. It works with citizens to increase their awareness of and personal interest in both the local and global issues. Singapore is now aiming to be a regional centre for environmental technology.

To assure implementation of this plan a vigorous awareness campaign was conducted, directed at schools, citizen organizations, government departments, business and commerce, consumers and the army. People are invited to partake in environmental planning. Government undertakes rigorous implementation of regulations. People now have personal benefit by the supply of potable water to all homes, and daily waste collection. Children are educated about local bio- diversity through innovative information campaigns.

The two examples show how information leads to awareness and how public policy, to be plausible, can lead directly to appropriate action. The ECAT centre in Kaliningrad has similar aims but far less resources to realize them. Nevertheless, by conducting polls on awareness, making information on key environmental issues available to the public and improving local know-how on environmental conditions, the Centre now has major effect on public policy and individual perceptions.

UEF-Euro '98, page 22 Examples from several cities showed that change is most effective if people are involved in a real follow-up to public awareness campaigns: to participate directly in formulating solutions and in recommending change processes. This type of policy was adopted in Lusaka where the mayor's office enhanced local ownership of urban environmental issues by a policy of inviting the public to participate in a city consultation process supported by the Sustainable Cities Programme. The government made a public commitment to deal with the problems identified by the stakeholders. Educational goals on general hygiene, environmental awareness, and technical information were achieved at the same time. Stakeholders were invited to identify and recognize the problems, and add to implementation capacity given the available resources. The consultation process is now being followed up by practical measures, and further information campaigns, including the use of drama groups as well as reports by TV and radio.

It is apparent that it is critically important to share information on practical methods of implementing change processes through appropriate enabling frameworks. We heard that in many countries there is much room for improving the climate for reporting and awareness raising.

A colleague from Ghana explained that awareness raising through media often runs up against the indifference of editors and the resistance of advertisers. Obstacles to implementation are the often desperate needs of the poor as well as the impacts of structural adjustment programs by the IMF. Personal threats are a fact of life for some journalists. However, environmental reporters are a tough and dedicated bunch and are not easily deterred. Several contributors said that awareness of appropriate legislative, fiscal and technical measures is being effectively raised through local, regional or global networks.

A presentation about the World Health Organization's Healthy Cities Programmes emphasized the importance of showing the linkages between health provision, healthy urban conditions and planning for sustainable urban development. One of the key findings of this work is that extreme levels of social inequality can also be linked to exceptionally bad health conditions among the poorest.

We had a presentation on the work of the European Sustainable Cities Campaign, which, despite uncertainties about its financial continuity, has expanded its work following a first major conference in 1994. It works to link sustainability initiatives by city authorities across Europe, to provide concepts for the integration of sustainability issues in local authority projects, plans and policies, to emphasize the importance of community participation, to support formulation of local sustainability strategies, and to monitor and review Europe-wide progress. We also had the benefit of a presentation about the work of the European Centre for the Urban Environment in Berlin which put much of its efforts into research on the many substantive issues facing city governments. The Centre works with individual cities on practical know-how and advice on issues ranging from waste management, transport alternatives, and the potential of job creation from environmental initiatives.

Worldwide, the networking by cities has proved to be critical for the successful dissemination of best practices and policies. This Forum provides living proof of the importance of personal exchanges between concerned people who have, in many cases, met for the first time.

UEF-Euro '98, page 23 It is clear that the importance of local actions for global sustainability is now being widely recognized by governments the world over. It is becoming evident that the ecological footprint of cities can be several hundred times larger than their own surface area. It is becoming equally evident that practical measures to make the use of resources by cities more efficient are a major tool for global sustainable development. It is equally important that local authorities are given the appropriate, financial, legislative and technical tools to meet that task. Awareness campaigns are critical in achieving the culture change that makes it possible to achieve these aims.

The Urban Environment Forum, in meetings such as these, can further strengthen such initiatives.

UEF-Euro '98, page 24 URBAN ENVIRONMENT FORUM (UEF-EURO >98) MOSCOW DECLARATION

We, representatives of cities working toward sustainable growth and development at the local level and representatives of international programmes supporting cities in this work, have met in Moscow on 1-4 June 1998 in the framework of the Urban Environment Forum to review our efforts and achievements in environmental planning and management.

The UEF is a broad global coalition defined by the shared concerns of its members, who are development practitioners responsible for urban environmental management. Being defined by shared purposes - and not by institutional linkages - the UEF is genuinely a >forum=, which exists only to facilitate the ability of its members, individually and collectively, to achieve these purposes.

We are aware of the critical importance of the urban environment for social and economic advancement in cities. We are also aware of linkages between urban environmental management and critical global concerns, such as international stability and peace. Technological and economic development have united mankind into a single world community. With increasing globalisation has come an awareness of how modern economic growth has been pursued without sufficient concern for its damage to the environment world-wide. Our ability to sustain progress into the next century will depend upon changing this attitude and learning to live in harmony with nature. In addition, differences among countries in levels of consumption, as well as differences in access to and use of natural resources, carry the potential for instability and conflict. The challenge is to improve consumption and production patterns to bring them into line with the ability of the environment to sustain them. To achieve this will require a new culture of partnership, not only at the global level but also at the regional, national, local and community levels.

We re-confirm the value of exchanging information and lessons of operational experience through the Urban Environment Forum as a means of advancing our collective know-how and supporting our efforts toward implementing Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda. This exchange has allowed us to gain new and valuable insights and to forge new partnerships. Our intensive Working Group discussions brought together experiences from the North and the South, from the East and the West, and our analysis of these highlighted a number of specific recommendations for further dialogue and exchange through the UEF.

Improving information for sustainable urban development Inadequate or poor quality information leads to bad decisions and problems with implementation, and the Working Group agreed that greater availability of relevant and useable information - especially about management issues - is crucial. Also, in most city governments and other organisations there are great problems of sharing information: information exists but is not made available from one department or group to another. However, even if information is shared, there are still problems with using it effectively. Often there is too much information, and to be useful, this information must be organised in a meaningful way which is appropriate for its eventual use. This is an area of activity in which the UEF and its members could be of great help - providing methodologies and facilities for not only accessing but also organising and selecting information. A variety of local, national, regional and global programmes exist which are rapidly developing their abilities to assist cities in accessing appropriate information. These focus on information generation and distribution, on promotion of local networks for exchange, and on training and capacity-building. They have considerable potential and should be extended. In addition, regional meetings of the UEF are strongly recommended as an effective means of facilitating information exchanges and building capacities for both generating and effectively utilising information.

Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches The working group emphasised that encouraging active participation by local stakeholders in the framing of decisions is an essential component of good governance. Representative democracy, to be transparent and accountable, needs to be built upon dialogue with non-governmental organisations, community-based organisations and all sectors of civil society. Such participation may take a wide variety of forms adapted to local needs,

UEF-Euro '98, page 25 circumstances and cultures. The UEF should undertake an ongoing exchange of experience and practice in this field. The concept of sustainability being indivisible, women must be recognised as stakeholders in the development of all urban environment policies. The UEF should contribute to the framing of indicators to measure progress in stakeholder involvement, including notably the mainstreaming of gender awareness. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the role and responsibilities of local government in sustainable development is fundamental. National legislation and regulations affecting these must be framed in consultation with all stakeholders, including national associations of local authorities. The UEF should provide opportunities for exchanging experience in efforts to strengthen the capacity of national associations to negotiate with national governments and to support their members= work in managing the urban environment.

Improving implementation through legal instruments Experiences of various cities and programmes have shown that implementation of environmental strategies and action plans are facilitated if legal and regulatory instruments are established to provide a legal basis for such actions and to institutionalize certain policies. However, to be effective, these legal instruments, be they at the local, national or global level, must be developed in a highly participatory manner involving the various stakeholders (including the communities, the NGOs, the private sector and the local governments); must be supported with sufficient resources, capacity building mechanisms and a monitoring and evaluation system; and should be allied with other implementation instruments such as economic incentives, strategic capital investments and public information and awareness. While recognizing the need for consistency in the application of environmental laws nationwide, the participants found it useful to allow for some flexibility at the local level to allow local governments to respond to specific conditions and changing needs. National laws should therefore be limited to providing the broad legal framework, with local authorities given the power to establish detailed implementing rules and regulations. It was also observed that one should not resort to legal instruments right away. Actively involving the communities in the entire environmental planning and management process not only develops a strong sense of ownership and commitment but may in fact make the passage of a law or a regulation unnecessary. To improve implementation through legal instruments, the UEF should develop and facilitate access to databases of all existing urban environmental management legislation, rules and regulations, and document and disseminate what and how various implementation instruments have worked or have not worked, with special emphasis on broad-based consensus building process for law making and social marketing.

Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector To integrate urban environmental management with economic development, the private sector should be involved in the development of urban environment strategies and their implementation. Its involvement will promote a cooperative rather than an adversarial approach, build bridges between the public and the private sectors and lead to a better understanding of their respective needs and limitations. For the implementation of urban environmental strategies, involving the private sector as a long-term investor will leverage the public sector=s resources, both human and financial. The private sector will also contribute its technical know-how and management skills. However, the private sector will only invest where it finds a suitable legal, administrative and physical environment and where it can meet its own target rate of return. To ensure that the public services dimension of urban environmental management is maintained, it is strongly recommended that the public sector remains an active participant by entering into public-private partnerships. To this end, the UEF should reinforce its cooperation with the private sector and its associations and promote their direct participation in both global and regional activities.

Promoting transparency in urban environmental management Participants were concerned about the negative impact that corruption can have on the urban environment and local economic development. Participants recognized that corruption hurts everyone. It is stimulated by lack of democracy and complex bureaucracy. Corruption misappropriates economic resources to the detriment of the urban environment and citizens. It deepens poverty and distorts social and economic development decisions. It erodes the provision of essential public services and can harm the environment. As urbanization increases throughout the world, greater attention is being paid to the negative impact of corruption at the local level. Participants recommended the formation of broad coalitions of individuals and organizations to work with local authorities in a variety of ways to put in place management systems and reduce the likelihood that corruption can take root. A broad range of partners is already working in several cities and participants recommended that interested UEF partners establish a interest group for pursuing this urban environmental concern on a global basis.

UEF-Euro '98, page 26 Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness Participants reported that public awareness on sustainability issues is improved most effectively by imaginative information dissemination of factual issues, to the public as a whole or to specific groups, both by the media and public bodies. Shared public awareness campaigns by local government, NGOs and the media are the most effective agents for change, but this convergence is often difficult to achieve. Information leads to awareness and public policy, to be plausible, should then lead directly to appropriate action. Examples from several cities showed that change is most effective if people are involved in a real follow-up to public awareness campaigns: to participate directly in formulating solutions and in recommending change processes. It is therefore critically important to share information on practical methods of implementing change processes through appropriate enabling frameworks. We heard that in many countries there is much room for improving the climate for reporting and awareness raising. Several contributors said that awareness of appropriate legislative, fiscal and technical measures in being effectively raised through local, regional or global networks. This networking by cities has proved to be critical for the successful dissemination of best practices and policies. UEF should further strengthen such initiatives.

We commit ourselves, in our respective capacities, actively to participate in and support the Urban Environment Forum in developing these and other initiatives. We recommend further that new information-sharing and exchange mechanisms be carefully designed to complement and strengthen existing ones. Finally, we request the participants and organisers of this Regional Meeting for Europe and CIS countries to distribute this declaration to all partners of the Urban Environment Forum.

Drafted and adopted by 260 participants representing 99 cities and 34 international support programmes in Moscow on 4 June, 1998 (list on file with the UEF Secretariat, UNCHS/UNEP Nairobi, Fax 254 2 62 3715)

UEF-Euro '98, page 27 ROUND TABLES ORGANISED IN CONNECTION WITH WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

The City of Moscow organized a series of urban-related events leading up to the United Nations Environment Programme=s global World Environment Day celebrations on 5 June, 1998. This series of round table sessions on the theme AMan in a Big City of the 21st Century@ was comprised mostly of participants from Russian and CIS cities and was conducted in parallel with the UEF-Euro >98 meeting. We are pleased to include, as requested by our hosts, a sample of the conclusions of these round tables, as provided to us by our hosts.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE ROUND TABLE ORGANISED BY THE CITY OF MOSCOW

On June 5, in accordance with the decision of the United Nations, the World Environment Day is observed annually. The aim of the day is to draw the attention of the entire world to a most acute problem of our time - environmental protection. This year the capital of Russia, Moscow, was chosen as the venue for organizing the main actions of this most important event of the world community. Among these is the UEF-Euro >98 meeting, which ended yesterday and which was convened at the initiative of the UN Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT), the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the Government of Moscow.

The mayors and representatives of cities of 50 countries of the world discussed topical problems related to the protection of the urban environment, exchanged their experience and outlined ways of further cooperation for the sake of the sustainable development of cities and improvement in the quality of life of their population. The Forum adopted the Moscow Declaration, which contains an appeal to civil partnership and responsibility at all levels for the sake of a healthy and sustainable development of the cities and our entire planet in the 21st century.

The governments and peoples of the entire world should not and cannot tolerate a fiasco in the solution of the pressing environmental problems. The stake is too high, and the threat for the future life on the Earth has become so acute that no one has a right to ignore it any longer.

One of the most pressing problems, with which humankind is confronted on the threshold of the new millennium is the environmental crisis in cities. Most of the most serious environmental problems of the world, threatening the quality of the air, the quality and accessibility of water, energy supply, waste disposal and recycling are becoming more acute as a result of the high density of the urban population and its activities. The government will not achieve on their own success in the solution of these problems. There is the need for partnership among the local authorities, the private sector and public organisations - such is one of the main conclusions of the Forum, which took place.

The technical achievements and the logic of the development of the last century have united the entire humanity into a single world community with its common destiny, which depends on

UEF-Euro '98, page 28 whether the peoples and governments would be able to learn, finally, in the next century to live in peace and conciliation with each other and in harmony with nature.

At the same time, the growing globalization engenders a lot of explosive contradictions and problems. This globalization is accompanied with the spread of the profoundly vicious mentality of the past, mentality based on the priority of consumption without due regard for the damage caused to Nature. There is a growing gap in the level of consumption between the industrialized and developing countries, the gap which is based on the wasteful use of resources of the latter in the interest of the former, and this is fraught both with the degradation of the natural environment and with unpredictable international conflicts. Until it is too late there is the need to reject the claims made by some countries and by some transnational corporations to monopolize control over the most important natural resources of the Earth.

An alternative for the civilization to material consumption for the selected should be a stable system of global partnership, a system which is based on mutually beneficial and equitable interregional, interstate, intercommunal and interpersonal relations designed for a long time to come. A symbol of the international solidarity of the cities should be the establishment of really partnership relations between the cities of the industrialized and developing countries or countries with their national economy in transition like the CIS (or the Commonwealth of Independent States) countries for the purpose of the transfer of technologies and an exchange of experience.

With each passing year demands are growing legitimately, which are made by the organisations of the civil society and by the most active groups of the population for participation in the preparation and adoption of decisions on improvement in the environment surrounding the cities and on the observance of the norms of ecological ethics when making administration and managerial decisions. The participants in the UEF Euro >98 Forum paid priority attention to the improvement of ecological planning and management.

Each person has a right to the healthy environment but equally each person is also obliged to work for the implementation of this right not only by himself/herself and by the people living nearby but also by the future generations. Therefore, so important now are the efforts of experts, the enthusiasts of the environmental movement and the mass media, which are active in their stand on these problems in shaping a correct environmental behaviour of the citizens. Their efforts call for an adequate legislation, and an administrative and judicial regulation at all levels, to stop the deepening crisis and to reverse the process of man's ruinous effect.

The participants in the Forum solemnly declared that they want to work together and they will work together in order to prevent an environmental disaster of our cities and to ensure a better quality of life for those living in them today and for those who will live there tomorrow.

UEF-Euro '98, page 29 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ROUND TABLE ORGANISED BY THE K.E.TSYOLKOVSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE FUND

According to the unanimous opinion of the round table participants held in Moscow on June 3, 1998 within the framework of the International Congress on urbanization and environmental problems, the activity of world community in the field of ecological safety has a priority and a significance for mankind and it is important as such problems, as a struggle for the peace, struggle against nuclear threat, etc. The ecological situation in the global scale is in such menacing condition, that the efforts of the whole world community for radical change of the resulting situation are necessary. The degree of pollution of the environment has reached such a level, that in near future many processes threaten to become irreversible.

The current ecological condition in the world shows, that to protect one separate country from harmful effects of the human industrial activity is not possible. The Chernobyl nuclear power station catastrophe, fires in Indonesia, etc. render influence on the ecological conditions in global scale. It means, that there is no capability to maintain the level of ecological safety within the limits of one separate country. Therefore activity on protection against harmful consequences should obtain an international character, and each country should be guided by unified legal rules, usually, on the basis of the UN recommendations.

The "round table" participants believe, that the ecological safety issues should be considered on the basis of the new positions, which would take into account interstate character of proceeding processes, necessity of integral measures for the nature protection, reciprocal influence of the negative factors, etc. For the solution of this problem, it is necessary to engage modern scientific potential and on this basis to create effective technical means of the environmental protection.

The existing criterions of the evaluation of the environment ecological condition are special and, as a rule, do not establish complicated interrelations of various processes. It is necessary to create modern phenomenological model of the environment ecological safety and on this basis to develop mathematical model of process, that will allow to determine scientifically reasonable criterions and to predict possible consequences of it.

The K.E.Tsyolkovsky Moscow State Aviation Technological University International Trustees Foundation cooperates with many leading scientists, scientific and industrial collectives of Russia and other countries. The extensive geography of the Foundation (USA, France, Great Britain, Australia, Czech, Byelorussia, Greece, Cyprus and others) has allowed to develop the extensive ecological program including hundreds of the projects in cooperation with scientific community of these countries. Realization of this program will allow to solve a broad spectrum of the ecological problems in different countries and regions of the Earth. The "round table" participants note, that the integrated measures with use of whole potential of the scientific developments and implementation of advanced effective technologies are necessary for constraining crisis situations in the field of the environment and megalopolises protection with the purpose of counteraction to the crisis phenomena.

The contribution of the Russian and CIS scientists, which experience is based on the high scientific fundamentals and can render serious influence on the UN projects, dedicated to a problem of the Man in large city. This item has found reflection in the Foundation's International program "The Earth environment protection", which contains a large number of the ecological safety projects. After exchanging of opinions on the most urgent ecological problems, the "round table" participants regard necessary to mark the following:

UEF-Euro '98, page 30 C For the first time is indicated an influence of vortical tracks of flying by airplanes on the atmosphere condition, degree of ozone layer destruction and level of danger for other airplanes located in a vortical systems interaction zone; C The implementation of the wide-scale project with use of space vehicles, will allow to execute the long-term control of ecological conditions of the planet, to reveal, in good time, crisis regions and operatively make decisions about improvement of the ecological situation in them; C Edition of the map atlases "The Geography from the Space" and "The Mudflow phenomenon in the World" will promote the preparation level of the teachers of the Ecology and Ecological education and permit more completely evaluate the ecological situation on the Earth. It will allow to predict a situation and to take appropriate measures with allowance for perspectives; C The methods of biotechnical systems of hydrosphere protection and development of a complex examination of the psychophysiological condition of man's organism in extremal conditions deserve steadfast attention; C The development of methods of the rehabilitation of soils polluted by radionuclides, heavy metals, pesticides and petroleum remainders has a value practically for all countries of the World. These methods should be implemented in the international programs; C Extinguishing forest fires remains to be one of the most acute problems for many countries. Introduction of offered ways and systems for their detection and extinguishing in combination with existing ones, will considerably increase effectiveness of the struggle with them and reduce caused damage. Use of the offered inexpensive and ecologically clean compositions will reduce costs of their extinguishing; C The condition of atmosphere of large cities connected with heavy development of an urban transport, and existence of the thermal and electrical energy production enterprises reaches, frequently, critical level of fuel combustion products. The adaptation of highly effective neutralizing agents for the spent gases, as well as the creation on the flameless burners using the same physical principle, should find a place in nature protection measures of the megalopolises; C The program of the Foundation contains large number of the projects on water purifying. The "round table" participants consider, that it is necessary to introduce purposeful techniques of purifying for needs of the population and productions with a various technology levels. It will expand a cycle of use of water and will promote the savings of it. The implementation of the projects of cleansing of water areas of the seas, channel and coasts of the rivers from the decommissioned vessels and various metal constructions will serve the same purpose. The offered projects are based on high technologies and modern technical developments.

On the basis of these conclusions, the "round table" participants of the Foundation consider to draw attention of "Man in a Big City of the 21st century" Congress participants to the ecological program, containing the particular projects, which should definitely find its reflection in the decision of the Congress.

UEF-Euro '98, page 31 ANNEXES

UEF-Euro '98, page 32 UEF-EURO >>98, 1 - 4 JUNE MODALITIES AND STRUCTURE OF THE MEETING

At the very heart of the Urban Environment Forum is the basic mutual learning process. This process provides a unifying framework through which the diverse experiences of UEF members can be brought together. It reflects operational city practices and was agreed to and formalized at the global level in the Istanbul Manifesto in 1996. This common analytical framework, together with a growing network of interested cities and international support programmes, comprise the key ingredients of success for the UEF. UEF-Euro >98 was organised around five themes which derive directly from the five elements of this agreed Environmental Planning and Management framework, and they are as follows:

C Improving information for sustainable urban development C Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches C Improving implementation through legal instruments C Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector C Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness

These five themes were explored in depth, over two days, by five Working Groups. The working groups examined the themes at four levels of activity: city, national, regional and global, keeping in mind that at all levels their shared concern remained with urban environment issues at the city level. Naturally, as the discussions moved through the levels, the topic and type of responsible actors changed. The meeting was fortunate to be able to bring together this diverse range of actors for almost all working groups. The aim was to show links among these actors in urban environmental planning and management at the various levels, so as to enhance complementarity, promote collaboration and ultimately improve the collective efficiency of all the participants.

Another basic defining feature of the UEF is that it is grounded solidly on practical experiences, and its fundamental approach is to advance collective know-how by systematically exchanging and learning from operational experience. The overwhelming majority of participants were practitioners from cities or international support programmes who were in a position to make valuable contributions to the working groups. These contributions were comprised of tangible material and real-life experience which was discussed and analysed - yielding practical information which led to important insights and lessons of experience and which can be readily adapted and applied to real life problems.

The results of these intensive working group sessions are summarized in this report and reflected in the UEF Moscow Declaration. The importance and utility of the UEF approach to information exchange was re-confirmed at the UEF-Euro >98 meeting. Many thanks to the continued commitment and sincere participation of the UEF members and the support and assistance of the Moscow City Government for making the meeting such a success.

UEF-Euro '98, page 33 UEF-EURO >>98 SUMMARY AGENDA

Monday 1 June 1998 - afternoon Day One - Opening and Introduction to UEF-Euro >>98

14:00 Opening Welcome and Opening Address by the Russian Hosts and the United Nations C Welcome by the Russian Hosts C Opening address from the City of Moscow Mr. Yuri Louzhkov, Mayor of Moscow City C Opening address from the United Nations Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary General, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Centre for Human Settlements - UNCHS (Habitat), presented by Mr. Frits Schlingemann, Director for Europe, UNEP C Presentation of the Lomonov and Legasov Medals for outstanding contributions to the environment and safety

15:30 Introduction to UEF-Euro >>98 Chairperson: Mr. Norkin, Minister of Moscow City government C The Urban Environment Forum Mr. J. Eigen, Coordinator of the Secretariat of the Urban Environment Forum C Improving information for sustainable development Mr. D. McCallum, Consultant, Urban Environment Forum C Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches Mr. P. Bongers, International Relations Consultant C Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector Mr. B. De Selliers, Associate Sustainable Project Management, Public Private Partnership Programme (PPPP), UNDP and Representative, Business Council for Sustainable Development Mr. M. Lippe, Transparency International, Washington, DC, USA C Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness Mr. H. Girardet, Sustainable Urban Development Author and Media Specialist C Improving legislation and institutional arrangements Ms. B. Gozun, National Programme Coordinator, MEIP C Structure of the meeting Mr. D. McCallum, Consultant, Urban Environment Forum

18:00 Official opening of the Urban Environment Bazaar The Honorable Yuri Louzkhov and Mr. Frits Schlingemann for Mr. Klaus Töpfer

18:30 Welcoming cocktail reception hosted by the City of Moscow

UEF-Euro '98, page 34 Tuesday 2 June 1998 Day Two - Working Group Sessions

9:15 City level Working Group sessions

12:00 Urban Environment Bazaar

14:00 National level Working Group sessions

16:30 End of the session

17:00 Plenary session - Working Groups report back

18:00 End of session

Wednesday 3 June 1998 Day Three - Working Group Sessions

9:15 Regional level Working Group sessions

12:00 Urban Environment Bazaar

14:00 Global level Working Group sessions

16:30 End of the session

17:00 Plenary session - Working Groups report back

18:00 End of session

Thursday 4 June 1998 - morning Day Four - Field Trip

8:00 Buses depart from Ukraina Hotel for field trip

12:00 Urban Environment Bazaar

UEF-Euro '98, page 35 Thursday 4 June 1998 - afternoon Day Four - Closing Session of UEF-Euro >>98

15:30 Report of the meeting

Chairperson: Mr. Norkin, Minister of Moscow City Government

C Improving information for sustainable development Mr. D. McCallum, Consultant, UEF C Improving decision-making through broader-based approaches Mr. P. Bongers, International Relations Consultant C Improving implementation through legislation and institutional arrangements Ms. B. Gozun, National Programme Coordinator, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), Philippines C Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector Mr. B. De Selliers, Associate, Sustainable Project Management, Public Private Partnership Programme (PPPP), UNDP and Representative, Business Council for Sustainable Development C Promoting transparency through coalition between all sectors Mr. P. Eigen, Chairperson Transparency International

C Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness Mr. H. Girardet, Sustainable Urban Development Author and Media Specialist

Adoption of the UEF-Euro >>98 Moscow Declaration

Launching Moscow Sustainable Development Programme Site on the Internet Mr. Yuri Louzhkov, Mayor of Moscow City as presented by Mr. K. Norkin Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary General, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Head of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements - UNCHS (Habitat)

Presentation of the Moscow Statement prepared by the host city

Closing Address by the Russian Hosts and the United Nations

C Closing address from the United Nations Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary General, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements - UNCHS (Habitat)

C Closing address from the City of Moscow Mr. Yuri Louzhkov, Mayor of Moscow City

18:00 End of the Meeting

UEF-Euro '98, page 36 June 5 World Environment Day '98 Celebrations For Life on Earth

The United Nations Environment Programme celebrated World Environment Day '98 in Moscow on June 5, 1998, to promote global awareness of the environment and its significance for social and economic development at local, national and global levels. The UEF offered concrete input from the urban context to these celebrations, and World Environment Day provided an opportunity for the UEF message to reach a global audience. All UEF-Euro >98 participants were invited to the prestigious celebrations with over 1,000 of their international counterparts.

World Environment Day culminated with the presentation of UNEP=s Global 500 Awards to 23 individuals and organisations from 19 countries who made outstanding contributions to the environment. A number of impressive cultural events took place around World Environment Day, including music, dance and exhibitions.

UEF-Euro '98, page 37 Agenda by Working Group

Working Group One - Improving information and technical expertise for sustainable urban development

Chairperson: Mr. Kogan, Academician, Moscow State University Facilitator: Mr. D. McCallum, Consultant, Urban Environment Forum

Tuesday 2 June 1998

9:15 Improving information and technical expertise at the city level

Lead discussant: C Mr. J. Beck, Mayor of Stuttgart, Germany

Discussants: C Ms. L. Casanova, Deputy Director, International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), UNEP, Japan C Ms. J. Stevens, Programme Coordinator, Awareness and Preparedness at the Local Level (APELL), UNEP, France C Mr. B. Doe, Project Manager, Sustainable Accra Project, Ghana C Mr. H. Omrani, Project Director, Sustainable Tunis Project, Tunisia C Mr. O. Cisse, Project Manager, Sustainable Dakar Project, Senegal

14:00 Improving information for sustainable urban development at the national level

Lead discussant: C Ms. D. Kimble, Senior Adviser, Municipal Development of ICMA/US-AID Resource City Programme, Washington, DC, USA

Discussants: C Mr. N. Denisov, Programme Officer, Cities= State of the Environment on the Internet (CSoEI), UNEP/GRID-Arendal, Norway C Ms. E. Pahl-Weber, Cities of the Future, Germany C Mr. O. G. Okunfulure, Director, Department of Land, Urban and Regional Planning, Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos, Nigeria C B. Eghan, Cief Director, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, Ghana

Wednesday 3 June 1998

9:30 Improving information and know-how for sustainable urban development at the regional level

Lead discussant: C Mr. D. Lapid, Regional Coordinator for Southeast Asia, Urban Waste Expertise Programme (WASTE), The Philippines

Discussants: C Ms. I. Haaf, City Twinning Programme (TACIS), Eurocities, Brussels, Belgium C Mr. O. Salem, Programme Associate, Urbanisation and Human Settlements Programme, Centre for Environment and Development in the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), Cairo, Egypt

UEF-Euro '98, page 38 14:00 Advancing collective know-how at the global level

Lead discussant: C Mr. J. Eigen, UEF Secretariat, UNCHS (Habitat), Nairobi, Kenya

Discussants: C Mr. M. Mutter, Senior Physical Planning adviser, Department for International Development (DFID), UK on OECD guidelines programme, London, UK C Mr. R. Tuts, Coordinator, Localising Agenda 21, UNCHS (Habitat), on IACSD initiative towards common approaches, Nairobi, Kenya C Mr. G. Sippel, Senior Adviser, Municipal and Urban Development, GTZ, Germany, on Best Practice Programme

Working Group Two - Improving urban environment decision-making and strategies through broader-based approaches

Chairperson: Mr. N. Moiseev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of UNEPCOM-Russia, President of the Green Cross Russian Branch Facilitator: Mr. P. Bongers, International Relations Consultant, London, UK

Tuesday 2 June 1998

9:15 Making strategies and decision-making more gender-responsive at city level

Lead discussant: C Ms. C. Hoja, Director of State Planning Department, City of Hamburg

Discussants: C Mr. L. Baoda, Technical Director Environmental Programme, Barcelona, Spain C Mr. F. Muwowo, Project Manager, Sustainable Lusaka Programme, Zambia C Ms. I. Wallfahrt, Advisor to the Ministry and Gender Officer, Ministry of Environment, Planning and Agriculture, North-Rhine Westphalia, Düsseldorf, Germany

14:00 Strengthening the role of Local Governments and civic society in the national urban environmental agenda

Lead discussant: C Mr. N. Moiseev, President of UNEPCOM-Russia, President of the Green Cross Russian Branch

Discussants: C Mr. S. Tstplenkov, Executive Director, Greenpeace Russia C Mr. D. Hedley, CARE International, Lusaka, Zambia C Mr. A. Kawonga, City Planning and Estates Manager, City Council, Lilongwe, Malawi

Wednesday 3 June 1998

9:15 Regional urban environmental strategies and their stakeholders

CIS C Mr. N. Moiseev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, President of UNEPCOM- Russia, President of the Green Cross Russian Branch MedCities: C Mr. L. Boada, Technical Director for Environmental Programmes, City of Barcelona, Spain

UEF-Euro '98, page 39 C Mr. I. Christos, Town Clerk, Limassol, Cyprus Europe: C Mr. G. Vinogradov, Human Settlements Officer, Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations C Mr. M. Parkes, Urban Development Adviser, European Commission Asia: C Ms. B. Gozun, National Programme Co-ordinator, MEIP, The Philippines SADC: C Mr. F. Muwowo, Project Manager, SLP, Lusaka

Working Group Three - Improving implementation through involvement of the private sector

Chairperson: Mr. K. Norkin, Minister of Moscow City Government Facilitator: Mr. B. De Selliers, Associate, Sustainable Project Management, Public Private Partnership Programme (PPPP), UNDP and Representative, Business Council for Sustainable Development

Tuesday 2 June 1998

9:15 Working with the private sector at the city level

Lead discussant: C Ms. C. Barbieux, Urban Issues, Ministry of Cooperation, France

Discussants: C Ms. M. Zemor, Deputy Mayor, St. Denis, France C Mr. R. Pereira, National Programme Coordinator, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), World Bank, Colombo, Sri Lanka C Mr. D. Taiwo, Project Manager, Sustainable Ibadan Project, Nigeria

14:00 Implementing national urban environmental strategies with the private sector

Lead discussant: C Mr. L. Menezes, Co-ordinator Sustainable Chennai Support Project, India

Discussants: C Ms. M. Pailthorp, Officer, Urban Programs and Environment, USAID, Central and Eastern Europe, Warsaw, Poland Wednesday, 3 June 1998, 9:15

9:15 Promoting transparency through coalition between the public, private, and community sectors at city and national levels

Lead discussant: C Mr. P. Eigen, Chairperson, Integrity in Urban Governance Programme, Transparency International (TI), Berlin, Germany

Discussants: C Mr. M. Lippe, Integrity in Urban Governance Programme, Transparency International (TI), Washington DC, USA C Mr. K. Norkin, Minister of Moscow City Government, City of Moscow

UEF-Euro '98, page 40 C Mr. C. Christoffel, Chairman of the Berlin Anti-Corruption Working Group, City of Berlin, Germany

14:00 Global private sector support to implementing sustainable urban development

Lead discussant: C Mr. B. De Selliers, Associate, Sustainable Project Management, Public Private Partnership Programme (PPPP), UNDP and Representative, Business Council for Sustainable Development

Working Group Four - Supporting change through information campaigns and public awareness

Chairperson: Mr. A. Isaev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Facilitator: Mr. H. Girardet, Sustainable Urban Development Author and Media Specialist, London, UK

Tuesday 2 June 1998

9:15 Supporting sustainable development through information campaigns at the city level

Lead discussant: C Mr. O. Martijn, Town Planning & Transport Department, City of Rotterdam

Discussants: C Ms. I. Hoffman, Environmental Centres for Administration and Technology (ECATk), Russian Federation, Kaliningrad, Russian Federation C Mr. Wang Weizong, Deputy Secretary General, Shenyang, P.R. China C Mr. F. Mwale, Mayor of Lusaka, Zambia

14:00 Supporting sustainable urban development through public awareness at the national level

Lead discussant: C Mr. M. Mc Carthy, Consultant, WHO-Euro Healthy Cities Programme, Copenhagen, Denmark

UEF-Euro '98, page 41 Discussants: C Ms. J. Abrosimowa, Healthy Cities Programme Russia, WHO C Mr. I Blokov, Campaign Director, Greenpeace Russia

Wednesday, 3 June 1998

9:15 Regional networks for decision makers and experts

Lead discussant: C Mr. A. Payne, Campaign Coordinator, European Sustainable Cities Campaign, Brussels, Belgium

Discussants: C Mr. H. Fietz, European Academy of the Urban Environment, Berlin, Germany C Mr. J. D. Taylor, Deputy County Manager, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Eurocities

14:00 Supporting change through awareness building at the global level

Lead discussant: C Mr. H. Girardet, Sustainable Urban Development Author and Media Specialist, London, UK

Discussants: C Ms. E. Guilbaud-Cox, Special Events Co-ordinator, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya C M. Y. Shishaev, Deputy Director, UNIC Moscow C Mr. M Annane, Journalist, Ghana

Working Group Five - Improving implementation through legal instruments

Chairperson: Mr. O. Kolbassov, President of the Ecology Law Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences Facilitator: Ms. B. Gozun, National Programme Coordinator, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP)

Tuesday 2 June 1998

9:15 Considering regulatory mechanisms at the city level

Lead discussant: C Mr. Andrzej Zydek, Mayor of Piekary Slaskie, Poland

Discussants: C Ms. C. Cristomo, Project Co-ordinator, Local EPM Project, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, The Philippines

14:00 Considering regulatory mechanisms at the city level (continued)

Lead discussant: C Mr. Subramani, Vice-Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, India

Discussants:

UEF-Euro '98, page 42 C Mr. S. El-Shazly, Expert, Ministry of Planning and International Co-operation, Ismailia, Egypt C Ms. H. Eid, National Project Manager, Sustainable Ismailia Govenorate, Project, Egypt

UEF-Euro '98, page 43 UEF-EURO >>98 OPENING SPEECH, JUNE 1, 1998 Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary-General of the United Nations Executive Director of UNEP and UNCHS (Habitat) Presented by Mr. Frits Schlingemann, Director for Europe, UNEP

Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is my great pleasure and privilege to welcome you on behalf of Dr. K. Töpfer, Executive Director of UNEP and UNCHS, to the Urban Environment Forum in Moscow today. This meeting takes place in the midst of a series of other events - most of them linked to the World Environment Day celebrations.

We are really pleased by the decision and commitment of the Government of Moscow to participate in the Sustainable Cities Programme of UNEP and UNCHS (Habitat). Their participation will be highlighted by the Moscow State of the Environment Report which will be launched and presented to you later this week.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as we gradually become accustomed to the fact that we are adding a quarter of a million people every week to our population, we have yet to fully comprehend the fact that the world=s cities are growing by one million people each week. As with other patterns of resource use on our planet today, the outstanding characteristic of urbanization is the disparity between the conditions of the rich and the poor. The majority of the growth in urban population has been absorbed by cities in the developing countries. The developing world has 213 cities of more than a million people and some 20 at the 10 million mark.

The economic and environmental distress of these cities may be the most pressing issue facing the world today. Proliferation of unplanned urban settlements fuels not only a crushing cycle of poverty and disease but also crippling social problems, such as drug abuse and crime. And, as the urban settlements continue to deteriorate, the debate on how to help them grows increasingly divisive. Programmes aimed more directly at city development have so far been fragmented and ineffective. These piece-meal approaches have usually taken the form of subsidies or expensive efforts to stimulate economic activity in fields such as housing and real estate. Lacking an overall strategy, such programmes have treated the city as an island isolated from the surrounding environment and subject to its own unique laws.

The blanket of smog that hangs over cities such as Rio, Mexico City, Delhi, Beijing and tens of thousands of smaller cities is indicative of more critical problems that these countries face - of vulnerability to environmental sanitation problems, to natural disasters, to man-made disasters such as chemical plant accidents and to the day-to-day impacts of transport and industry. Especially dangerous is the public health hazard of contaminated water supplies or other sources of pathogen transmission resulting from inadequately treated sewage.

The explosive and continuing growth rates of urban areas have created profound challenges for the sustainable management of these settlements and their hinterlands. Cities are expanding into fragile eco-systems. The time has come to recognize, both in word and in deed, that revitalizing our cities will require a radically different approach. While socioeconomic-economic development should continue to play a critical role in meeting human needs and improving

UEF-Euro '98, page 44 education, it must support and not undermine an urban strategy which is environmentally sound and sustainable in the long run.

AThe Environment@ is a central factor in social and economic development. Sustainable use of environmental resources supports economic growth which is essential for alleviating poverty. Environmental degradation hinders economic growth and environmental quality is a prime determinant of the quality of life.

Ladies and Gentlemen, cities are the engines for economic growth. Cities are the centre of innovation and productivity. They generate the output and wealth that allows nations to develop. They are the focal points for improvement in literacy, health and welfare. It is in cities where the direct impacts of people on environment - and of the environment on people - are most immediately felt:

C concentrations of people and industries can seriously damage the environment and lead to unacceptable levels of air and water pollution, chemical and toxic waste, etc. C a degraded environment can in turn seriously harm people through water-borne diseases, poisoning from air pollution, toxic waste, etc.

It is in the cities where we must work the hardest to balance care for the environment and development, to make them mutually reinforcing: we need to build a Avirtuous circle@ in which good management of the urban environment supports strong and well-managed urban development, which in turn enhances and sustains the environment. We need fully sustainable urban development and management practices.

There is no easy way to achieve this - no simple path to sustainable urban development. But experience from around the globe has taught us some valuable lessons - one of which is the necessity of a partnership approach. The reasons for this are clear. First, the enormous scale of the task requires the mobilization of resources - physical, financial and human - from the widest possible variety of sources. Second, the complexity and difficulty of the task requires the effective mobilization of the wisdom, skills and knowledge of all those that possess them. Third, cooperation in applying these resources and understanding to urban environmental planning and management - working through partnership - is a most cost effective way to proceed.

The Urban Environment Forum is an innovative and important mechanism for promoting this partnership approach. It has the great advantage of being tightly focused on urban environmental planning and management, on promoting action rather than re-action, in line with what we environmentalists call the precautionary principle. As a result, the members and participants in the UEF not only share a common set of concerns but also a common framework for how to solve those problems and prevent new ones from coming up.

UEF-Euro >98 brings together a great variety of European partners and potential partners, including representative from cities, national and regional cooperation programmes, the private sector and NGOs. During these four days of discussion, you will increase and refine your knowledge, strengthen cooperation and emphasize and support new linkages, both between Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe and between the ANorth@ and the ASouth@.

UEF-Euro '98, page 45 I am very pleased that the United Nations, and in particular UNEP and UNCHS (Habitat), which are under my direct supervision, have been playing and continue to play a leading role in facilitating and supporting the UEF. Indeed, promoting, catalysing and sustaining such partnerships is a role for which the United Nations is especially well suited.

Ladies and Gentlemen, these meetings are about cooperation and partnership. May they help us all to better address the main problems facing cities today, namely with regards to water supply and sanitation, solid waste management and air pollution control. In each of these areas there are compelling rationales for change. May they help us to improve the provision of environmentally sound infrastructure in human settlements, in particular for the urban and rural poor, as an investment in sustainable development that can improve the quality of life, increase productivity, improve health and reduce the burden of investments in health care and poverty alleviation. May they finally assist in strengthening local governments to develop more environmentally friendly cities and put the right policies in place.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as I see it, the increasing pace of global integration will determine whether in the future the lines that separate a city, a country, a region and a continent will get progressively blurred or not. One thing is clear, and it is that the fate of cities will determine more and more not only the fate of nations but also of our planet. We can afford to ignore the issue of the sustainable management of our cities only at our own peril.

I wish you a very productive and excellent forum.

UEF-Euro '98, page 46 OPENING ADDRESS, UEF-EURO >>98, 1 JUNE, 1998 Lord Mayor Y. Louzhkov, Mayor of Moscow City, Russian Federation

Dear Mr. Toepfer, dear participants in the congress and guests, Today we have gathered with you in order to discuss, in my view, a most important problem, with which humankind is confronted. For a long time now, I think, for more than 150 years, many most clever and most noble people have been anathematizing big cities and have been calling for life in the open air in a patriarchal environment of almost natural economy. And many people read about such things with satisfaction and interest. They do read but they do not want to live in such a way. I believe that such dreams will not be able to cause radical changes in the way home sapiens live in our planet. People will always strive for a dense settlement. This is, evidently, an objective and almost genetically necessitated property of this species. Moreover, if we set, even theoretically, the task of locating in a space ship to be called the Earth as many happy, and spiritually and physically healthy people as possible, then we shall have to settle these people in large cities in order to have a normal budget outside these cities.

It is not fortuitous that we took the initiative of holding this congress in Moscow. Moscow is one of the biggest megalopolis of the world and has concentrated in itself many contradictions between two main trends of human activities: replenishment of one's own home with economy and the home's preservation with ecology. As of today, in the Russian Federation more than 108 million people are urban dwellers. In more than 100 cities the environmental situation is unfavourable. By the time of the beginning of economic reforms Russia's national economy turned out to be structurally deformed and ineffective. Its negative effect on the environment in terms of a unit of a product which is produced was much higher than that in the technologically advanced countries. This is a very complicated heritage. Cities are centres of economic development, and of the concentration of the population and culture. At the same time, in the cities contradictions manifest themselves in a very acute way between the growth of requirements for resources, goods and services, and the need of preserving a favourable environment. When consuming the bulk of non-renewable resources and discharging into the environment the waste of their activity, they have practically exhausted the potentials of the self-restoration of the systems of nature.

I will deal with some, in my view, common problems of big, in the first place, cities of Russia and the possible ways of their solution - drawing on the positive and negative experience of Moscow. I would call my report in the following way: Sustainable Development - A New Utopia or the Image of an Objective?

At the beginning, a few words about philosophy. The words sustainable development appear ever more often in writings on the economy of the countries and territories. An optimist, who hears for the first time these words, has, most likely, an feeling of comfort and confidence in the future. Optimists think that even development as such is a good thing and very promising. And if development is sustainable, you can be happy to give birth to your children and have your grandsons and to be sure that they will feel much better than we did in the past. And what about pessimists? They have already seen so many times how people are obsessed in vain with less promising perspectives. For example, for 70 years we were persistent in our efforts to build

UEF-Euro '98, page 47 paradise on the earth but we failed after all. And what happened to the innumerable projects of utopian socialists? By the way, it is difficult to say a word to oppose the beauty of these projects. And it may be so that the notion of sustainable development is nothing more than a beautiful dream, which will be studied by our descendants with curiosity, and whose quality of life will be even worse than that of ours.

So, is sustainable development possible? Using the language of mathematics, when you seek a solution you should always start with the theorem of existence. And for this purpose there should be a model of a phenomenon. Certainly, I cannot speak now about a mathematical model. Let us take as the model an everyday phenomenon: a flower in a flower pot standing near your window. It is pleasant to see that the leaves of the flower become bigger and better every day, it grows and flourishes, pleasing our eyes. Isn't it a model of sustainable development? And what will we say when the roots of this Asustainably developing@ plant tear the pot apart? Isn't it the model which we should make the basis? And, on the other hand, let us recall the Japanese culture of bonsai. What is meant in this case are miniature trees, which are grown in pots, trees such as oaks, pines and cedars. By means of special agrotechnology, if such a word can be properly used here, and to be more precise by means of the greatest art these plants remain alive and amazingly beautiful for hundreds of years. May be this is genuine Asustainable development@? Let us try to get to the crux of this matter. I think that it is quite insufficient to reduce the problem to purely material factors. All the more so as it is done in works on sustainable development, when the main attention is concentrated on decreasing the negative environmental consequences of the economic development and growth of the people and the population. These are, certainly, important aspects of the problem but I would like to have wider approaches.

We will note, first and foremost, that apart from the anthropogene and technogene burden on the environment it is very important to take into account the suddenly emerging limitations of the possibilities of making the economic potential operate at capacity. The sustainable nature of development can interrupt, for example, on the ground that some resource will become out of reach or will vanish for any kind of reason. This phenomenon can in no way be connected with the environment, but it cannot but be taken into account.

The second and no less dangerous cataclysm of sustainable development can be called the Acollapse of the pyramid of consumption@. The pyramid of consumption is far more dangerous than a financial pyramid. I will explain what I mean. For example, in the USA we can see a very high level of consumption per head of population and this level grows there as a whole at a pace which is stable enough. One should be happy over such sustainable development, but a pessimist is sure to draw your attention to the fact that the implementation of the Adream@ for 5 per cent of the population of the Earth required 15 per cent the planet's energy resources. And such a person is sure to think over the question: what will happen, when 35% of Earthmen want to follow the same way. Such a person will think it over and will be horrified. This won't be a split flower pot. My generation remembers what the struggle (and, in actual fact, war for living space) is like even without nuclear weapons. And, apart from oil, there are other resources in relation to which a similar situation may arise.

UEF-Euro '98, page 48 Therefore, the idea of sustainable development in its basis rejects the concept of global civilization based on material consumption. Here the thing is not so much in contradiction to moral principles, which are advocated by most of the humanity but in the purely pragmatic understanding that in such development, speaking figuratively, contains the gene of death.

It is important to stress that when renouncing the ideals of consumption society, which are fundamentally unachievable for the entire population of the Earth, we do not enter into a conflict with the sacred and natural right of a person, the right which is recognized by us, to the desire for happiness.

Firstly, in addition to the ideals of material consumption there are spiritual ideals. And they are no worse notions about human happiness. There are even whole countries when such a notion is very widespread, if not dominant. Tibet, for example. Why should we go as far as Tibet? I cannot understand myself why a person can need 15 fountain-pens. When I think about the consumption society, I recall all the time a short story told by ancient historians about one chief of an African tribe, who, in order to amaze foreign ambassadors with his wealth, received the guests, sitting on a bag of salt. And he poured salt on his upper lip. At that time there were difficulties in obtaining salt. When a person says that he/she needs prestigious furniture he/she reminds me of that chief. The ideal of consumption is the child of poverty.

There is the second and the main cause because of which we should give up the ideal of consumption. When acknowledging that all people have been created by the God equal, we should recognize, above all, their equal right to consume the resources of our planet. This, in combination with the universally accepted principle: you shall not kill, breaks away with the consumption society.

We regard the main source of the unsustainable nature of development a badly-thought-out and rapacious approach to meeting today's needs, and the struggle of some groups and countries for control over the world's resources. We regard as the main guarantee of sustainable development an approach to these needs from the positions of social partnership, mutually advantageous interstate. interregional and interpersonal relations for a long time to come, and care to be shown for the future generations of humankind. Each statesman and even every citizen must think from six to seven generations ahead.

So much for philosophy, and let us examine specific problems. 1. Can the leaders of such a big city as some country not pay attention to the sustainable development problem? It goes without saying that they cannot. In my report I will try to prove that it would be short-sighted otherwise both from the stand point of the city community and from the standpoint of our country and even from geopolitical positions. Whatever philosophical views we might have about the reality of sustainable development in the scale of centuries, in the city there are many places of accumulation of tensions, places which may lead to cataclysms long before the appearance of a global impasse of development. As for Moscow, the following should be mentioned, in the first place:

C socially dangerous stratification of society; C inadequacy of the city's productive force; C transportation problem;

UEF-Euro '98, page 49 C worsening of the environment for living.

Let us examine the socially dangerous stratification of society. The problem concerning poorness and the social stratification emerged in Moscow quite unexpectedly for many people. In regard to the ratio of the rich and the poor in Russia and Moscow, it should be said that now practically the situation is as it was in Russia at the end of 1916. We know from the past how it can affect the sustainability of the development processes. I have already spoken about this issue more than once and therefore I will not delve into details. I shall only stress that Russia's social problems have specifics not typical of other countries.

Let us speak, first of all, about the quantitive and qualitative aspects of the social stratification of our society. In our country the situation concerning poverty fundamentally differs from what we have in the developed countries, for example, in the USA or Germany. There, after all, poverty is the lot of a clear minority of the population. Unfortunately, in our country this is far from being so. The average monthly per capita income of 90% of the population does not exceed 100 US dollars, whereas the prices for the main foodstuffs in Russia are rapidly approaching the world level. At the same time, the average monthly income of 5% of the population exceeds 3,000 US dollars. Such a distribution of the national income and the wealth cannot exist in a free country. Such a situation can be maintained for a long time only by force. This stratification, literally, grasps the country at the throat. It is because of this stratification that the demand structure is formed, under which maximum incomes are obtained given the growth of prices and the reduction of the amount of production and sales. This is what keeps domestic prices at a high level. It is only for these 5 per cent that the established exchange rate of the dollar to the rouble is acceptable. In Russia now, as a matter of fact, there are two countries, which are separated from each other by a Agreen curtain@ - a high exchange rate of the US dollar.

Now about the moral aspect of the problem. Let us ask a question: in what way there appeared in Russia citizens who need social assistance? We do not take into account the sick and disabled people. The number of such people is the same everywhere and they are not the people that count. But from where have there appeared such a big number of poor people in a rich country? As I have said more than once, this cannot be accounted for by the poor people themselves or their parents by citing, for example, to the fable AThe Dragon-Fly and the Ant@, which was written by Krylon, a most prominent Russian writer of fables.

An exacting, demanding and, sometimes, severe attitude to the poor people in the free market economy countries is based on the philosophy of the beneficial nature of a Anatural selection@. Taking such a stand, it is not difficult to find things to have even a most needy old man reproached. And, generally speaking, such a position cannot be unequivocally called only severe. No matter how pity we might feel for such people, we will not be able to reject the thesis that it is the threat of possible poverty that compels a great part of society to work intensely and make savings. The complete abolition of poverty can lead to such undesirable consequences for society as the destruction of wolves for the packs of the deer. Rich people, as a rule, feel sympathy for the poor and even help them. But they do it not for the reason that they have something to feel guilty in regard to them. It is purely moral factors that have an important role to play here. Apart from this, by providing assistance, the rich people weaken more or less

UEF-Euro '98, page 50 deliberately the social force of the poor and contribute to the preservation of the system that ensures their wealth.

In the reality of Russia and in Moscow, in particular, the nature of poverty is different. It is very difficult, even relying on 'Darwin's' norms of law to prove the beneficial nature of the fact that among the poor there is a healthy, high skilled, non-drinking person, a former equal co-owner of the colossal Aproperty of the whole people@ of Russia, a person who all his life was honest in fulfilling his/her obligations in regard to the former system. How could the great wealth appear in the country over the two years where levers of the previous system but not the principles of honest and free competition. Our poor people cannot be calmed down by legends about the inevitability of the criminal character of the initial accumulation of capital. History does not know of examples, when such a small number of people would appropriate the property of 90% of their compatriots for such a short time. The violation of the principle of the sacred nature of property is of a such flagrant character that if this sacrilege is brought to an end, it is safe to predict that the revenge for it in the form of vindication (compulsory return of the property that was lost) will be expected for not a long time. The past of Russia offers convincing proof that it is very dangerous to lay into the basis of the new government system the usurpation of alien property.

That is why we are concerned over a possible effect of social problems on the sustainable nature of development. Let us examine the issue of the city's productive force. I will remind you that the city's productive force determines the amount of the gross domestic product, which is produced on the average for one hour of work. As the city and industrial construction develop, as the technologies of production are improved, as the skill of the population raises and as new means of production are produced, the city's productive force grows. But to make this growth sustainable there is the need to give a boost to this force with manpower resources of an appropriate skill. But we know that people live longer than technologies and many means of production live still longer than people. As a result it turns out that in the city primitive means of production are accumulated and people, who have become old, adapt themselves to these means, while new technologies begin to gravitate towards young cities, which are not burdened with such prehistory. As a result, the ability of the city is violated to export competitive products and this, naturally enough, reduces the amount of funds which can be invested in the development of technology and the retraining of the personnel. There appears a positive feedback: the worse it is the worse it is, but this is already a potential possibility of cataclysms of development. The decline in the city's productive force is accelerated additionally by the transportation problem. The matter is that the desire to preserve the positive trends of the development of the aging production sectors compel their managers to increase the number of hired workers and material flows. And this, especially in the city of a radial and ring structure, cannot but aggravate the transportation problem. We know that the throughput capacity of the streets depends on the speed of movement. If for some reasons it becomes slower, a transportation paralysis can easily happen and the city, in which there are both means of production and manpower resources, can produce nothing. This is, certainly, an extreme case but it is in this place that one of the possible cataclysms of the sustainable development of the megalopolis lies.

The dangers which are connected with the worsening of the environment for living are manifesting themselves according to about the same pattern. When the technogene and anthropogene burden on the city's environment exceeds a certain threshold, the slowdown of development can start to develop like a snow ball. The worsening of habitat causes material

UEF-Euro '98, page 51 losses and it goes further according to the following chain: reduction of incomes, greater losses of working time and greater expenses on medical treatment, fall in possible allocations for environmental protection and further on the worsening of the environment for living. Thus, we see that the city authorities can in no way ignore the sustainable development problems. Each of the above-mentioned sources of tension is capable of exploding the city. And I have mentioned only a part of such sources.

When examining the matters related to sustainable development for Moscow we must remember the specific peculiarities of the development of the megalopolis. We must also remember that there are natural and objective Laws of the development of large settlements, and these regularities cannot be ignored with impunity. Negative consequences can manifest themselves not at once, for example, in the life of future generations but at a much greater scale than if they would have been noticed at an early stage. The spread of Moscow according to the principle of an oil spot up to the size of 40 km in diameter is not too long to come. However, the preservation of the lungs of Moscow in the afforestation protection belt is already being questioned, though, it is generally known that the spot of uninterrupted construction of buildings in such a diameter is not blown through in practice up to the height of 12 km, we still see how by the efforts of both Moscow and the Moscow region we are approaching our megalopolis to an environmental disaster.

Certainly, the construction of buildings in Moscow is not as dense as in Western megaopolis, in which environmental problems have appeared but as we come to understand the value of the Moscow land the process started spontaneously for a more dense construction of buildings in the city, especially, in the territories of industrial facilities.

2. Why does every country, community and person want to have it better but it turns out to be worse? In a general form, the answer to this question is known. The point consists in the various speed of two most important social and economic processes. The first process - this is a chain: - actions by an economic entity - remuneration for these actions. The second process - this is a chain: actions by the economic entities taken as whole - changes in the productive force and the quality of the city's environment. From the theory of systems, according to common sense, it is clear that given such a correlation of constant factors of time the trajectory of the system can divert from our desires as far as it can.

The general methods of overcoming the above-mentioned difficulties are also known. It is needed that the everyday decisions, which are adopted, were based not so much on the maximization of the sum of benefits according to the first chain as on due regard for the distant consequences of these decisions - according to the second chain. At the same time, optimization must be made at a sufficiently long interval.

Unfortunately, this is nothing more than wishful thinking. It is typical of human nature to bring benefits of nowness only in a limited amount as a victim to more distant benefits. By the way, even a dog is not capable of doing such things. Even there is such a saying: AA bird in the hand is worth two in the bush@. The only method of overcoming this specific feature of a human person as a biological entity consists in combining the remuneration of nowness with the efforts in such

UEF-Euro '98, page 52 a way that, by guiding himself/herself by exactly the calculations of nowness, a human person, without even suspecting it, works for the future. I will revert back to this matter again, when speaking about the tax and legal environment, but for the time being I will say only that this is far from being a simple task and it is for this reason that he cannot shape reasonable criteria for the activities of nowness and we have the situation: We wanted to have it in a better way but it turned out to be as always.

Apart from the above-mentioned causes, there is another factor which operates and which is especially apt to be mentioned exactly now. What is meant is a goal-oriented distortion of the system of priorities. In their programmes the elected authorities cannot fully renounce populist promises, which undermine the very idea of sustainable development. They are under the pressure brought to bear upon them by the electors, the bulk of whom does not see the benefits of nowness, does not have an instinct for preservation at the level of serious care to be shown for the future generations and is capable of shifting its problems onto the shoulders of descendants.

By and large, at the present time, in the society of Russia there are so many dissatisfied people that it is premature to speak about sustainable development. But the number of the dissatisfied people does not decrease, that is, an incorrect approach is being applied to the solution of specific problems which are engendered by the scenario, which was chosen for the reforms. It is evident that it is impossible to find the solution of the social problems of Russia and Moscow at the expense of tips to the poor. There is the need to cure not a symptom but the disease. If poverty is caused by the loss of the property of the whole people, it cannot be cured by the redistribution of incomes.

There should not have been an encroachment on the income, which belonged to the people of Russia as the owner of their natural economic complex prior to the reforms. We could have privatized this income through vouchers or could have consolidated in the budget for the solution of nationwide tasks. But we should not have regarded privatization as a boon or as a victim. This should have been an honest and mutually beneficial transaction between the old-time and new owners. Only an increase in the income from the government-owned property and depreciation deductions belong by right to the new owners of the government-owned property. This can be achieved by way of a correct choice of the procedures of the privatization of government-owned property and the creation of a stimulating tax and legal environment. I recently examined this problem in the report at the meeting of the Free economic society and in my speech which I made before the students of Moscow State University. Sufficiently much has been spoken by me on the issue of privatization. Therefore, I will not give any further details in this respect.

If we want sustainable development, then we should not forget that the thesis about the sacred nature of the property rights is not an agreement but a great revelation made by humanity. There is not a single country which would have scored success by violating the above-mentioned and some other Anatural@- (Biblical) laws of property. People, who want to get a benefit by violating these principles are similar to a monkey, which has grasped a banana within a narrow-neck jug. We must get out of this impasse. This will provide social stability without which the possession of property can become a source of great misfortunes. Without social partnership Russia's problems won't be solved.

UEF-Euro '98, page 53 3. To what ideal, in our opinion, efforts should be made to aspire? When making use of the legislation and the standard acts, which are associated with the law, by the mass media, which are to be controllable, the methods of education, we must contribute to lowering the technogene burden on the city's territory, the inculcation of moral principles into the society, and the introduction of social taboos which strengthen the viability of the city's community as a whole.

In terms of the performance of the city's functions in the interregional distribution of labour Moscow, which went through the period of industrialization a long time ago and can be considered now as an element of the world's infrastructure community, should have long ago brought the energy and material-intensive industrial processes closer to the sources of raw materials to the regions, in which industrialization only begins to develop. We still do not use in full measure the tax system for managing this process. But the first steps have been taken in this direction. We impose payment for land, depending on the character of its use in the city.

In the transition period it is difficult to make long-term planning but we are already thinking about making the city's center easier by creating eight anti-nuclei, going along various beams, at the level of the Moscow Ring Highway and a 50-km long circular motor way. These problems, naturally enough, will have to be solved jointly with the administration of the region.

Certainly, changeover from the transportation of people, materials and energy to the transfer of information flows will have an effect on the improvement of conditions for the solution of transportation problems, including the problems of passenger transport (because it will be possible to create a job by means of electronic mail at home or next to the home). But progress in the speed of transportation means, and, in the first place, of underground transport, levelling up the negative consequences of the spread of the city and its not too great density, provokes a further expansion of the megalopolis into the green zone.

As I have already said, for the successful development of society reasonable rules of the economic game are needed. These rules must be fair and wise. It would seem who will object to this thesis, who will say that these rules must be unjustified and silly. But it is as not that simple. If we merely use the word Ajustice@ without showing the specific substance of this word, then we meet with rare unanimity. If we clearly determine in what this justice consists, then we can find ourselves even with weapons in our hands on the different sides of barricades. The notion of justice is both a personal one and depends on time. Therefore, we can call only those rules of the game, which are recognized as such by the majority of the population, to be fair. To be more exact, these are such rules which can be established and maintained by a part of society, a part which has a social force sufficient for it. Only in the simplest of cases the social force is determined by the number of votes. In actual fact, there is the need to take into account both the political will and resources, which are at the disposal of an appropriate social group. We consider those laws and rules of game, which are regarded as fair during a big interval of time - 200 years and more, to be wise. Therefore, in my understanding, the solution of the sustainable development problem is, above all, the writing of fair and wise laws and the rules of social and economic affairs, the rules, which allow for not only ensuring the growth of wellbeing but also of rebuffing the negative phenomena or changes in the situation, which arise. I shall stress: all this should be done without a fundamental breakage of these rules and by way of their modification and evolution.

UEF-Euro '98, page 54 It is only now that I will call a number of key problems which we should solve in this respect. The first problem is Russia's option for an optimum limitation of absolute liberalism. The natural reaction to the collapse of the totalitarian regime is a strongest allergy to the existence of the public sector and to any interference of the government in economic affairs. But, certainly, this is nothing more than growing pains. Therefore, it is very important to construct competitive mechanisms to be suitable to Russia, mechanisms which are to stimulate a continued overflowing of the functions from the public to the private sector and backwards for the purpose of a maximum growth of social wellbeing. Generally speaking, it is not so important which sector - private or public - does any kind of work, and what is important to what extent there are specific incentives for raising the effectiveness of work.

The second problem is to establish a new system of economic relations and the rules of game, under which free citizens, when acting within the scope of laws in their own interest, would promote an economic growth and sustainable development of Russia as a country and those of humanity as a whole.

There is another important problem - the expansion of the rights of government officials to make decisions on their own. This expansion should be propped up by the system of the training of personnel and their selection, comprehensive control over them and their responsibility. All this should be done in application to the conditions of Russia. Evidently, the most important problem is the transition period and the human potential. It is difficult to image a bigger waste of the human potential than we are observing now. It is quite evident that we need to initiate the types of activities, which would be able, speaking figuratively, to feed all citizens of Russia not through providing services to the process of the sale of natural resources but by means of highly effective and science-intensive technologies, which use the unique educational potential of our society. This should replace the useless past activity, which call for high skills and which is related to the mass production of armaments and to the further development of the means of production for the sake of the development of the means of production.

In conclusion, I would like to deal a little bit with the global aspect of the sustainable development problem. May be, you have not expected from the mayor of the city geopolitical ideas but it should not be forgotten that in front of you is the mayor of the capital city and the representative of the territory, which in regard to the number of the population and the area, exceeds many European countries. When examining the matter concerning the collapse of the consumption pyramid, we could clearly see that the consumption scenarios of development can lead to a global disaster and interrupt sustainable (in quotes) development literally when it is starting to be at its height. In my conviction, this problem can be solved only on the basis of the philosophy of mutual benefit, the win-win philosophy.

There is the need to be very cautious in following the pieces of advice given by politicians, especially by the leaders of big countries, who antagonistically oppose the interests of their own countries to those of other countries. In my opinion, interstate relations and, in particular, relations between the Western countries and Russia, should be built on the same principles on which the relations of the equitable economic entities without one country are built.

UEF-Euro '98, page 55 The principle of social partnership, which has recommended itself well in intrastate relations, should become fundamental in the international affairs as well. We could already understand and even get sure in practice that all living in our territory hugely gain from the reasonable limitation of individual freedom for the sake of general prosperity. We are to make the last step towards the global understanding of the unity of the interests of all people of the Earth.

I think that the time, when it was possible to count on unilateral advantages in interstate relations, goes into the past. It is only partnership relations that will open up new vistas for humanity. Our globe has become so dense that the countries should interact with each other as good neighbours without giving up the fair and free competition of the leaders of these countries, when serving their peoples. There will be an especially big gain, if this competition is supplemented with the reasonable rules of a free movement of people, goods and capital and by steps to promote the global economic and engineering infrastructure. The universal gain from this will greatly excel everything that can be obtained by ensuring the protection of national interests by means of power methods at the expense of Aunilateral actions@.

4. Why isn't it possible to implement tomorrow the actions that guarantee sustainable development? What are obvious obstacles and the ways of overcoming them? Evidently, the main obstacle, no matter how paradoxical it might be, is the imperfection of the system of social indices and the indicators of the quality of life. Without a clear-cut expression of the sustainable nature of development through the system of adequate criteria it will be difficult for us to assess the effectiveness of the actions to be taken by the city authorities in all spheres, and, in particular, to ensure sustainable development. Therefore, we are introducing a system of indicators, on the basis of which an assessment of the quality of management will be made in prefectures and suprefectures of the city. This system will reflect successes, if any, in the solution of the following problems at the local level:

C the health of the population (the indicators of longevity and the quality of health and capacity for work, and the possibilities of being providing qualitative medical assistance), C public security (protection from severe crimes, crimes against property, the quietness of the citizens, and the feeling of their own security among the citizens), C education (along with the general indices of the level of education of the population, the indicators of the desire of the citizens to get second education, to be self-educated, to expand their world view and the indicators of the degree of access for the population to these types of activities), C income (a more precise account of the actual income of the population, a more exact definition of the notion of poverty for support and guardianship to be aimed for specific groups of the population), C employment (not only account of unemployment, including concealed unemployment, not only the possibility to get a job but also its quality, working conditions, the status of its prestige, comfort conditions of jobs, and comfortable transportation conditions in the megalopolis), C housing conditions (a more detailed assessment of the characteristics of a given area of residence in regard to comfortable conditions, conveniences and security, a more precise assessment of the quality of housing facilities in regard to conveniences, reliability and attractiveness), C leisure and recreation (due regard for the reorientation to the new places of rest and recreation during holidays, the diversity of forms, including health-building actions and family

UEF-Euro '98, page 56 rest for the period when the people are not on vacation, the recreational possibilities of the megalopolis in regard to going in for sport, attractions and one's own interests), C the system of settlement (the indicators of social comfortable conditions in microcommunities, environmental comfortable conditions in relation to the places of the application of one's labour, various services which are provided and recreational areas), C the environment (the use of lands, the quality of water, the air and foodstuffs).

World experience shows that any stagnant system of indicators instead of the leaders' orientation to improvement in the quality of life in the city begins to become a self-sufficing factor, and this is especially bad, if the system of indicators is incorrect. In our previous speeches we showed that in its work the mayor's office relies on the universal axioms of social justice, axioms which clearly manifested themselves in the concept of social and market economy. But, apart from this, we will use for the assessment of the quality of the city's environment and the quality of life the indicators which characterize the social movement in the city's community, the involvement of the citizens in the affairs of the city, in the culture of the city, to put it in a nutshell, due regard for the socio-political and psychological factors, along with more elaborate economic and environmental factors. A smooth and quiet changeover to the assessment of the quality of life according to the new indicators will be the basis of the plan for the sustainable development of the Moscow megalopolis. We understand full well the stand taken by the Dutch government on voluntary obligations as regards the limitation of the use of the resources, which belong to the entire humankind, in proportion to the population of a given region. In this context Moscow is far behind in many respects, but, on the other hand, it is in debt to the rest of the country in regard to actions which lead to the pollution of the environment. We have already started a differentiated approach to the taxation of the enterprises, depending on the character of the use of the city's land, water, air, and depending on the degree of relation of the functions they perform to the city. These differences are still too small in order to make the enterprises start thinking over their relocation to other regions where they will cause less aggregate damage to the environment or, wherever possible, there will be a less intensive use of the land and other natural resources. However, a smooth change in the tax burden is also a condition for the uselessness of the processes of improving the city's environment for the infrastructure of the city and its residents.

5. Thus, what shall be done? The previous four sections of my speech give only an analysis of the problem. On the basis of this analysis many constructive steps become evident, steps that should be taken to ensure a sustainable development of the city, at least in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, such steps should be discussed, elaborated on and implemented in a somewhat various audience and on the basis of other methods. I want to hope that my thoughts on this subject will make you be inclined to draw the conclusion that sustainable development without radical changes in the philosophy of life is impossible. The main thought: to make development sustainable, more spirituality and intellectuality than an approach based on consumption should be inculcated in the notion of Adevelopment@. And for this purpose there is the need to correctly use the potentialities of the authorities and the public sector to influence the development of social and economic processes, and public morals. This is especially important in such cities as Moscow because the social and economic phenomena in Moscow are ahead of the appropriate events in Russia from 10 to 15 years.

UEF-Euro '98, page 57 CLOSING ADDRESS , UEF-EURO >>98 MEETING, 4 JUNE, 1998 Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary-General of the United Nations Executive Director of UNEP and Head of UNCHS (Habitat)

Dear Colleagues, Mr. Norkin, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure and privilege for me to address you here at the Urban Environment Forum today at the very end of your work. I wish to thank our hosts, the government of Moscow, especially Lord Mayor Louzhkov and Mr. Norkin, for their efficient organization, their generosity and hospitality, and their support to this Forum. I would like also to thank the participants, many of whom have travelled great distances to be here. These participants are the practitioners and decision-makers from the cities, and I am very pleased to have all of you with us, knowing that you are urgently needed at home too. I really and sincerely hope that all cities here feel that it was worthwhile coming, to exchange their views, experiences and knowledge and as a result to make the work for others a little bit easier in the future.

Echoing you who just spoke here for the Union of Russian Cities, I totally agree with what was said. Of course the Forum must be open to the needs and ideas of the host country in particular. We want to make the best use of information, here in Moscow and Russia, where we know there are specific problems, and therefore I promise you that we will make every effort to have a very comprehensive report integrating all the findings, including the work of the round tables, and I hope that we can make the best use of all the information we have gathered.

We are very glad that representatives of national governments are with us in Moscow. We are glad that our friends and colleagues from the United Kingdom and the European Union are with us, and quite a lot of other representatives of national governments. Last but not least I am very glad that we have a lot of multilateral and bilateral representatives of support programmes, NGOs and private sector organizations. These people have the information we urgently need to solve problems for the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no question that the century we are entering will be the century of cities. The prognosis is absolutely clear - cities are already very well established, with more than 50% of the global population living in big agglomerations. This trend is also set for the future - more than 60 to 65% of all populations in the world will be living in urban centres, many in mega cities, with 20 million inhabitants and more. How do we handle this? Sustainable development in the future will be at the very centre of the problem of development of cities, of urbanizations. It is in cities where we have to prove that the concept developed in Rio de Janeiro and answered at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is really a good concept for the future too.

I really believe that we have to underline again and again that sustainable development is not only an environmental concept; quite on the contrary. Sustainable development is comprised of three major pillars: economic development, social integration and environment responsibilities. Only if we can combine these three pillars will we have a workable answer for the future. It is a matter of fact that especially developing countries are first and foremost intensively interested in overcoming poverty. UNEP and Habitat are located in Nairobi, Kenya, and we are glad to be

UEF-Euro '98, page 58 there, because we have to prove that the UN is able to run a headquarters not only in New York and Geneva and Vienna, but also in the developing countries, in Africa, a continent so long forgotten with all the problems they are faced with. And therefore I believe, ladies and gentlemen, that we need economic growth to overcome poverty in a growing world. Each day, 260 thousand more people are added to this wonderful planet earth. If you look from a satellite, I think it is not the planet earth, it is the planet ocean, because 70% of the earth is covered by oceans. This may give you a little signal for tomorrow=s World Environment Day, with the motto, SAVE OUR SEAS.

Nevertheless, we must overcome poverty, and we must overcome it without social disintegration and environmental burdens for the generations to come. Therefore, we ask, what can we do in our cities? Cities are the centres of economic development. They have better conditions for economic growth, especially with regard to services, but right now they may be a part of the problem and we must make them a part of the solution. We urgently need cities, with their dynamic economic development, to overcome poverty. Therefore, we have to avoid dis- economies of urbanization linked with environmental problems. The question of how to handle waste: solid waste, fluid waste, sewage water. This is an example of the dis-economy of urbanization, and we have to solve those environmental problems before we can use the positive side of urbanization economies for overcoming poverty.

Our cities will be the centre for social integration. Of course, right now, they are also a part of the problem. We see a lot of disintegration; of ghetto and slums. We see that there is a differentiation of social groups in the urbanized economies, and let me mention, ladies and gentlemen, that this is not a problem only in developing countries. It is also a problem of the so- called developed countries.

I was told once, years ago, that the difference between the developing countries and the developed countries is that in the developing countries, the slums and ghettos are at the rim of the cities, and in the developed countries, they are in the centre. I discussed this question intensively with our host Lord Mayor Louzhkov. What is the situation in Moscow? Do we have such a segregation going on? What is the overall repercussion of the differentiation of income with regard to the settlement structure in the city? These are social questions of the highest importance, and therefore we must also make our cities a part of the solution for these social problems. In Germany, we have a proverb which says that AAir in the cities makes free@. That is, social mobility in the city is much better than in the rural parts of the country. Can we claim the same in the future too? I really believe that sustainable development in cities must also make the social question a part of the solution, not only of the problem.

I am totally convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that these solutions are directly linked with intensive participation. You have discussed this topic thoroughly during the UEF meeting, and I applaud you. But we know that participation is only a motto if it cannot be linked with information. Who can participate in a decision-making process without information? That has already been mentioned, and I can only underline it. We have a right to information, even if the information is critical to those responsible. But that is the basis for democracy and for democratic decision- making.

UEF-Euro '98, page 59 From time to time, I have the feeling that we have too much data and not enough information. That is the main topic: how to bring the right information at the right time to the right decision making process. Otherwise, you can kill participation by offering too much data and not giving any structure to the information. It is also vital that, in the dialogue process, information is not only coming from above but is coming from the bottom up too. We need information in the right decision-making procedures again and again. I also want to emphasize that we do not have to always ask who is responsible for new information, we have to ask, where is the clearing house? Where are we able to make the most of networking and information?

I believe that Habitat and UNEP must be in this role of a clearing house, and know what information is available, and where, to have information available like the Moscow State of the Environment Report on the Internet. I am very glad that our young expert from GRID Arendal in Norway came and made this Report available to all. Of course the most important information is the speech of the Lord Mayor, but nevertheless there is some other information as well. I believe that all the people should be able to come and see what is going on. Perhaps this information will make a dialogue possible in the future, in order to make the best use on the information. I also believe that in the field of information we can do a lot without much money. Everybody believes it is always a question of money, although of course, resources must be available. If you have only the legal right to do something but not the financial possibility, then it is only a sheet of paper. The question of how to handle the financial situation of cities is a very outstanding topic. It is necessary to exchange our knowledge in this field to make the best use of the experiences of others to come to better overall result. On the other hand, you know that governance and the best integration and open participation are not directly linked with money. Such things are linked with creativity, openness, and also the possibility to criticize. I do not think that is a problem for the future. I believe that this conference, with participants from around the world, can be and will be a success. But it can only be a success if we continue our dialogue in the future too, and gather all the papers that have been presented. If you believe there should be more exchange, we are open with the Internet and all other communication technologies. It should not just be a conference, it should be a process: a process of cooperation, of information exchange, and perhaps then those coming here will be satisfied with the results.

Let=s make urbanization not just a problem today but also part of the solution in the future. That was our main message coming from Istanbul in 1996 at Habitat II. I was in the unique position of being a head of a national delegation to UNEP in Rio and to Habitat II in Istanbul. I know that this is more than just environment, it is also social and economic development as sustainable development, and that must be our message from Moscow, too. Let us join in overcoming poverty, in overcoming social segregation. Let us join together in a precautionary aspect with regards to environmental repercussions of economic growth. If we can do that, I really believe that this meeting was truly a success.

I would like to applaud those responsible in Habitat and UNEP for organizing UEF-Euro >98. Their experts been very active in the preparation and running this of conference, and let us be very open to all the information we have gathered here.

Thank you for coming.

UEF-Euro '98, page 60 UEF-EURO >98 PARTICIPANT LIST

CITIES

Accra C Mr. Ben Kofi Doe, Project Manager, Accra Sustainable Programme (ASP), Town and Country Planning Department, PO Box 2892, Accra, Ghana. Telephone: +233-21-667 340 Fax: +233-21-667 340 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Benjamin Clement Eghan, Chief Director, Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology, PO Box M232, Accra, Ghana. Telephone: +233-21-666 049, 233 336 Fax: +233-21-666 828 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Aktau City C Mr. Nikolai Baev, Governor of Manguistausskaya oblast, Aktau City, Kazakhstan*

Almaty C Viktor Khrapunov, Mayor of Almaty, Kazakhstan*

Amman C H.E. Mamdouh Al-Abadi, Mayor of Amman, Greater Amman Municipality, PO Box 132, Amman, Jordan. Telephone: +962-6-463 588/771 257 Fax: +962-6-464 9420 E-mail: [email protected]

Archangelsk C Mr. P.N. Balakchin, Mayor of Archangelsk, Lenina Square, 5, 163061 Archangelsk, Russian Federation*

Armenia C Sarkys Shakhazizjan, Minister of Environmental Protection, Armenia*

Arusha C Mr. Phillip Korduni Kivuyo, Lord Mayor, Arusha Municipal Council, PO Box 3013, Arusha, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 (0)57 3869 Fax: +255 (0)57 8073

Astrakhan C Mr. I.A. Besrukavnikov, Head of Administration, Besrukavnikov I.A., 414011 Astrakhan, Russian Federation*

Baku C Rafael Allakhverdijev, Head of City Executive Power, Baku, Azerbaidjan*

Barcelona C Mr. Lluis Boada, Director Tecnic de Programes de Medi Ambient, City of Barcelona, Torrent de l'Olla, 218-220, 5a pl., 08012 Barcelona, Spain. Telephone: +34-3-291 41 39 Fax: +34-3-291 40 16

UEF-Euro '98, page 61 Beijing C Ms. Weili Wang, Deputy Division Director, China International Centre for Economic and Technical Exchanges (CICETE), No. 18 Bei San Huan Zhong Lu, 100011 Beijing, China. Telephone: +86 10 6205 3914 Fax: +86 10 6201 1328 E-mail: [email protected]

Belarus C Yuri Pokumeiko, Chairman of Belarus State Committee for Hydrometeorology, Belarus* C Mishail Rusy, Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Belarus*

Belgorod C Mr. G.G. Golikov, Head of Administration, Lenina Str., 38, 308800 Belgorod, Russian Federation*

Berlin C Mr. Cornel Christoffel, Chairperson of the Berlin Anti-Corruption Working Group, City of Berlin, Department for Justice, Salzburger Str. 21 - 25, D-10825 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 78 76 3344 Fax: +49 30 78 76 3242

Blantyre C Mr. Steve L. Mgwadira, Deputy Town Clerk and Chief executive, City of Blantyre, PB 67, Blantyre, Malawi. Telephone: +265 670 211 Fax: +265 670 417 E-mail: donny@malawinet

Bronnitsi C Mr. A.A. Syroejkin, Head of Administration, Sovietskaya str., 66, 140170 Bronnitsi, Russian Federation*

Byshkek C Felix Kulov, Mayor of Byshkek, Kyrguizstan*

Cheboksari C Mr. A.A. Igumnov, Head of Local Government, K.Marx str., 36, 428000 Cheboksari, Russian Federation*

Chennai C Mr. A. Anantha Ranjana Doss, Chief Planner, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Project Manager, Sustainable Chennai Project, 8 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, India. Telephone: +91 44 856 5659 Fax: +91 44 853 5659 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. L.M. Menezes, Coordinator, Sustainable Chennai Support Project, 8 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Madras 600 008, India. Telephone: +91-44-8530 802 Fax: +91-44-8542 673 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Subramani, Vice-Chairman, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, 8 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Thalamuthu-Natarajan Bldg, Chennai 600 008, India. Telephone: +91 44 834 855/852 8008 Fax: +91 44 854 8416 E-mail: [email protected]

Cherepovets C Mr. M.S. Stavrovsky, Mayor of Cherepovets, Stroiteley Prospect, 2, 162600 Cherepovets, Russian Federation*

UEF-Euro '98, page 62 Colombo C Dr. C.K.M. Deheragoda, Director, Clean Settlements, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, CSPU, 9th Floor, Battaramulla, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 872 167 Fax: +94 1 869 960 E- mail: [email protected] C Dr. Pradeep Kariyawasam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo 7, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94-1-681 747 Fax: +94-1-684 290 E-mail: [email protected] C Dr. Fahmy Ismail, Deputy Commissioner, Colombo Municipal Council, Town Hall, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 681 747 Fax: +94 1 694 937 C Dr. Ravi Pereira, National Programme Coordinator, MEIP, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 863 954 Fax: +94 1 863 905 E-mail: [email protected]

Dakar C Mr. M. Oumar Cisse, Project Manager, Sustainable Dakar Project, , IAGU, Villa 2243 Dieuppeul IBP 7263, Dakar, Senegal. Telephone: +22 18 244 424 Fax: +22 18 250 826 E-mail: [email protected]

Dar es Salaam C Mr. Bitegeko B. Claudio, Assistant Commissioner for Local Government, Prime Minister's Office, State House, Magogoni Street, PO Box 3021, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Telephone: + 255 51 117 249/51 Fax: +255 51 112 850 C Mr. Charles N. Keenja, Chairperson, Dar es Salaam City Commission, Plot No. 1 Morogoro Road, PO Box 9084, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Telephone: +255-51-282 97 Fax: +255-51-114 014, 255 89, 115 455 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Joram Mghweno, Director for Human Settlements Department, Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements, Kivukoni Front, PO Box 9132, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 51 12034/113 165 Fax: +255 51 124 576

Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia C Mr. M. Jayaratne Perera, Mayor, Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia Municipal Council, 24/38A Kadawatha Road, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 738 704 Fax: +94 738 705

Delcevo C Ms. Jasminka Milenkovska, Translator, Community Council of Delcevo, Bul. Macedonia BB, 92320 Delcevo, R. Macedonia. Telephone: +389 903 411 101 Fax: +389 903 411 550 C Mr. Ljupco Prackovski, Mayor of Delcevo, Community Council of Delcevo, Bul. Macedonia BB, 92320 Delcevo, R. Macedonia. Telephone: +389 903 411 101 Fax: +389 903 411 550 C Mr. Vlado Velinovski, Manager, Construction-Building Company "Granit", Bul. Macedonia BB, 92320 Delcevo, R. Macedonia. Telephone: +389 903 411 101 Fax: +389 903 411 550

Dnepropetrovsk C Mr. Vitali Dydra, Institute of Geotechnical Mechanics, the Ukraine Academy of Sciences member, Dnepropetrovsk, The Ukraine*

Dserjinsky C Mr. V.I. Dorkin, Mayor of Dserjinsky, 140056 Dserjinsky, Russian Federation*

Dubna C Mr. V.E. Prokh, Mayor of Voronej, Sovietskaya str., 14, 141980 Dubna, Russian Federation*

Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown C Mr. J.D. Taylor, Deputy County Manager, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Dun Laoghaire- Rathdown, Ireland. Telephone: +353 1 280 69 61 Fax: +353 1 280 69 69 E-mail: ghehir@dunlaoghaire- rathdowncoco.ie

UEF-Euro '98, page 63 Dushanbe C Makhmudsaid Ubaidulloev, Mayor of Dushanbe, Tadjikistan*

Düsseldorf C Dr. Ingrid Wallfahrt, Ministerialrätin, Gleichstellungsbeauftragte im Ministerium für Umwelt, Raumordnung und Landwirtschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Schwannstrasse 3, 40476 Düsseldorf, Germany. Telephone: +49 211 4566 287 Fax: +49 211 4566 956

Ecaterinburg C Mr. A.M. Chernetsky, Head of Administration, Lenina str. 24a, 620038 Ecaterinburg, Russian Federation*

Gaza C Mr. Ayed Abu-Ramadan, Assistant to the Mayor for Project Coordination, Gaza Municipality, Palestine Square, PO Box 16, Gaza, Palestine. Telephone: +972 7 824 700 Fax: +972 7 824 400 E-mail: [email protected]

Georgia C Mr. Nino Chkhobadze, Minister of Environmental Protection, Georgia*

Hamburg C Ms. Catherine Hoja, Leiterin des Landesplanungsamtes, City of Hamburg - Stadtentwicklungsbehörde Hamburg, Alter Steinweg 4, D-20459 Hamburg, Germany. Telephone: +49-40-3504 3018 Fax: +49-40- 3504 3010 C Mr. Christoph Holzapfel, Dipl-Ing, Architekt, Marie-Louisen-Str. 61, D 22301 Hamburg, Germany. Telephone: +49 40 464 142 Fax: +49 40 464 142

Ibadan C Ms. Bola Obileye , Permanent Secretary, Oyo State Government, Department of Lands Physical Planning, Office of Military Administrator, Agodi, Oyo State, PMB 5643, Ibadan, Nigeria. Telephone: +234 2 241 1695 Fax: +234 2 231 8909 E-mail: [email protected]

Irkutsk C Mr. V.V. Jakubovsky, Mayor of Irkutsk, Lenina str., 14, 664000 Irkutsk, Russian Federation. *

Ismailia C Ms. Habiba Eid, National Project Manager, Sustainable Ismailia Governorate Programme (SIGP), Ismailia Governorate New Building, Commercial Street, Sheik Zaid, PO Box 191, Ismailia, Egypt. Telephone: +20- 64-344 585 Fax: +20-64-344 585 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Sameh El-Shazly, Expert, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, PO Box 191, Ismailia, Egypt. Telephone: +20 64 344 585 Fax: +20 64 344 585 C Mr. Maher Fares Fahmy, Sustainable Ismailia Governorate Project, El Sheikh Zaid, PO Box 191, Ismailia , Egypt. Telephone: +20 64 344 585 Fax: +20 64 34 585 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 64 C Ms. Mona Farouk Hamdy, Sustainable Ismailia Governorate Project, El Sheikh Zaid, PO Box 191, Ismailia, Egypt. Telephone: +20 64 344 585 Fax: +20 64 344 585 E-mail: [email protected]

Ivanovo C Mr. V.V. Troeglasov, Head of Administration, Revolution Square, 6, 153001 Ivanovo, Russian Federation *

Kaliningrad C Mr. J.A. Savenko, Mayor of Kaliningrad, Pobedi Square, 1, 236040 Kaliningrad, Russian Federation*

Kano, Nigeria C Mr. Hassan Sani Na'abba, Project Manager, Sustainable Kano Project, Office of the SSG Cabinet, Government House, No 1 Wudil Road, PMB 3080, Kano, Nigeria. Telephone: +234 64 63 0011 / 2916 Fax: +234 64 64 6577

Kasan C Mr. K.S. Ickhakov, Head of Administration, Kremlevskaya str., 1, 420014 Kasan, Russian Federation *

Katowice C Ms. Justyna Gorgon, Project Manager, Union for Sustainable Development of the Cities of the Katowice Agglomeration, Warszawska 4, 40-006 Katowice, Poland. Telephone: +48-32-253 9210 Fax: +48-32-253 9209 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Agnieszka Szczepanska-Gora, Project Assistant, Urban Environmental Management and Sustainable Development in the Katowice Agglomeration, ul. Warszawska 4, 40-006 Katowice, Poland. Telephone: +48 32 253 9210 Fax: +48 32 253 9209 E-mail: [email protected]

Kiev C Aleksander Omelchenko, Head of City Administration, Kiev, The Ukraine*

Kirov C Mr. V.A. Kiselev, Head of Administration, Vorovskogo str., 39, 610000 Kirov, Russian Federation*

Kishinev C Serafim Urekyan, Mayor of Kishinev, Moldova*

Korolev C Mr. A.F. Morosenko, Head of Administration, Octaybrskaya str., 1, 141070 Korolev, Russian Federation*

Krasnodar C Mr. V.A. Samoylenko, Mayor of Krasnodar, Krasnaya str., 122, 350001 Krasnodar, Russian Federation*

Kursk C Mr. S.I. Maltsev, Head of Administration, Lenina str., 1, 305000 Kursk, Russian Federation*

Lagos C Mr. Ahmad Tijjani Isma, Managing Director/Chief Executive, Urban Development Bank of Nigeria PLC, Zone 6, Wuse, PO Box 272, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria. Telephone: +234 9 523 3343 Fax: +234 9 523 3414 C Mr. Emmanual Oluremi Mejule, General Manager, Urban Development Bank of Nigeria PLC, Zone 6, Wuse, PO Box 272, Garki, Abuja, Nigeria. Telephone: +234 9 5233 525/7 Fax: +234 9 5233 737 C Mr. Oyewole Joseph Okunfulure, Director, Department of Lands, Urban and Regional Planning, Ministry of Works and Housing, Plot 797 Adetokunbo Ademola Crescent, Wuse II, Abuja, Lagos, Nigeria. Telephone: +09 523 9632 Fax: +01 269 2181

UEF-Euro '98, page 65 C Mr. Oladunjoye Amos Oyewumi, Assistant Chief Town Planning Officer, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Tafawa Balewa Square, Lafiaji, PO Box 80252, Lagos, Nigeria. Telephone: +234 1 688 621 Fax: +234 1 269 2181 C Dr. Mustapha Zubairu, General Manager, Urban Development Bank of Nigeria, 5, Idown Taylor St., Victoria Island, P.M.B. 80093, Lagos, Nigeria. Telephone: +01 262 0311 Fax: +01 262 0310

Lilongwe C Mr. Aggrey J.C. Kawonga, City Planning and Estates Manager, Lilongwe City Council, PO Box 30396, Lilongwe 3, Malawi. Telephone: +265 784 945 Fax: +265 780 885

Limassol C Mr. Ioannou Michael Christos, Town Clerk, Town Hall, 23, Arch. Kyprianos Str., PO Box 89, CY-3600 Limassol, Cyprus. Telephone: +357 5 362 694 Fax: +357 5 362 350

Lipetsk C Mr. A.I. Savenkov, Head of Administration, Sovietskaya str., 5, 398600 Lipetsk, Russian Federation*

Lusaka C Mr. Darren Hedley, Care International, c/o Lusaka City Council, Atakata Rd., Olympia Extension, PO Box 36238, Lusaka, Zambia. Telephone: +260 1 293 310/12/13 Fax: +260 1 292 544 C Dr. Glynn A.C. Khonje, Director, Department of Physical Planning and Housing, Ministry of Local Government and Housing, PO Box 50027, Lusaka, Zambia. Telephone: +260-1-250 996 Fax: +260-1-253 697 C Mr. Francis M. Muwowo, Project Manager, Sustainable Lusaka Programme, Lusaka City Hall, PO Box 30077, Lusaka, Zambia. Telephone: +260-1-251 482, 251 611 Fax: +260-1-251 475 C H.E. Fisho P. Mwale, Mayor of Lusaka, Lusaka City Council, Independence Avenue, PO Box 30077, Lusaka, Zambia. Telephone: +260 1 252 241/254 147 Fax: +260 1 252 141 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. J.J. Mwiimbu, Acting Town Clerk, Lusaka City Council, Independence Avenue, PO Box 30077, Lusaka, Zambia. Telephone: +260 1 252 241 Fax: +260 1 252 141

Manila C Ms. Consolacion Crisostomo, Project Coordinator, Local EPM Project, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Visayas Ave, Quezon City, Manila, Philippines. Telephone: +632 928 4969 Fax: +632 926 5595 C Ms. Bebet Gozun, National Programme Coordinator, Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme, 2/F Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources Building, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Manila, the Philippines. Telephone: +632 928 2965 Fax: +632 928 2965 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Maputo C Mr. Francisco Pangaya, Head of GAU, Urban Environment Department, MICOA, PO Box 2020, Maputo, Mozambique. Telephone: +258 1 465 843 / 708 Fax: +258 1 465 849 E-mail: [email protected]

Mbeya C Mr. Robert Elikana Francis Chidosa, Municipal Director, Mbeya Municipal Council, PO Box 149, Mbeya, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 (0)65 2372/2675

Minsk C Vladimir Yermoshin, Chairman of Executive Council, Minsk, Belarus*

Moratuwa C His Worship Appu Thantri Kankanamge Chandradasa, Mayor of Moratuwa, Municipal Council of Moratuwa, No 5., Sudharmarama Road, Kaldermulla, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 645 384 Fax: +94 1 645 384

UEF-Euro '98, page 66 Moscow C Mr. V. Baikov, Project Manager, Sustainable Moscow Project, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Arbat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Yuriy E. Kazakov, Environmental Policy Advisor, USAID/Russia, Novinsky Blvrd, 19/23, Moscow 121099, Russia. Telephone: +095-956 4281 Fax: +095-956 7093 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Vladimir Lissniak, Consultant, Sustainable Moscow Project, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Arbat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E- mail: [email protected] C Mr. Yuri Louzhkov, Lord Mayor of Moscow , Moscow City Government, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Arbat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Kirtida Mekani, Ex-Executive Director, Singapore Enviornmental Council, 7A Simferopolsky Boulevard, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 316 9522/763 364 Fax: +7 095 316 9522 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. K. Norkin, Minister, Moscow City Government, Project Manager, Sustainable Moscow Project, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Arbat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Vera Sidorova, Project Consultant, Sustainable Moscow Project, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Aabat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Eugeniy Sidoruk, Deputy-Project Manager, Sustainable Moscow Project, Moscow City Administration House, Noviy Arbat, 36, Moscow, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 290 7350 Fax: +7 095 290 7350 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Tatyana Vlasova, Socio-Economic Geographer, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geography, Staromenetry, 29 Moscow 109017, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 095 135 2202 Fax: +7 095 930 2090 E-mail: [email protected]

Moshi C Mr. D.N. Chuwa, Lord Mayor of Moshi, Moshi Municipal Council, PO Box 318, Moshi, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 55 52344 Fax: +255 55 523 44 C Mr. L.M. Masembejo, Municipal Planner, Moshi Municipal Council, PO Box 318, Moshi, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 55 543 72 / 523 44 Fax: +255 55 523 44 C Mr. Shaibu Muyinga, Municipal Director, Moshi Municipal Council, PO Box 318, Moshi, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 55 523 44 Fax: +255 55 523 44

Nijny Novgorod C Mr. A.N. Kosarikov, President Representative, Kreml, 603109 Nijny Novgorod, Russian Federation C Mr. A.N. Mileshkin, Head of Local Government, Kreml, 603019 Nijny Novgorod, Russian Federation*

Nijny Taguil C Mr. N.N. Didenko, Head of Administration, Parkhomenko str., 1a, 622000 Nijny Taguil, Russian Federation*

Novgorod C Mr. A.B. Korsunov, Mayor of Novgorod, B. Vlasievskaya str., 4, 173007 Novgorod, Russian Federation*

Obninsk C Mr. M.B. Shubin, Head of Administration, Preobragenia prospect, 1, 249020 Obninsk, Russian Federation*

Piekary Slaskie

UEF-Euro '98, page 67 C Mr. Andrzej Zydek, The Honorable Mayor of Piekary Slaskie, Chairman of the Union Council, SKAP II, ul. Warszawska 4, 40-006 Katowice, Poland. Telephone: +48 32 253 9210 Fax: +48 32 253 9209 E- mail: [email protected]

Pskov C Mr. A.B. Prokofiev, Head of Administration, Nekrasova str., 22, 180000 Pskov, Russian Federation*

Rosrov-na-Donu C Mr. M.A. Chernichev, Mayor of Rosrov-na-Donu, B. Sadovaya str., 47, 344700 Rosrov-na-Donu, Russian Federation*

Rotterdam C Dr. Oscar Martijn, City of Rotterdam, Town Planning & Transport Dpt, Galvanistraat 15, PO Box 6699, 3002 AR Rotterdam, Netherlands. Telephone: +31 10 489 49 21 Fax: +31 10 489 48 87 E-mail: [email protected]

Samara C Mr. J.S. Astakhov, Head of the Samara Region Environmental Foundation, Kuybisheva str., 145 room 343, 443010 Samara, Russian Federation*

Saratov C Mr. J.N. Aksenenko, Mayor of Saratov, Pervomayskaya str., 78, 401600 Saratov, Russia*

Severodvinsk C Mr. A.N. Beliyev, Mayor of Severodvinsk, Plusnina str., 7, 164501 Severodvinsk, Russian Federation*

Shenyang C Mr. Xiangyang Fang, Project Officer, Sustainable Shenyang Project, Shenyang Environmental Protection Bureau, Zhengyang Street, Shenhe District, Shenyang, PR China. Telephone: +86 2412 484 4985 Fax: +86 2412 484 6929 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Diantong Song, Division Chief, Shenyang Environmental Protection Bureau, Project Manager, Sustainable Shenyang Project, 254 Zhangyang Street, Shenhe District, Shenyang, PR China. Telephone: +86 2412 484 4985 Fax: +86 2412 484 6929 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Weizhong Wang, Deputy Secretary-General, Shenyang Municipal Government, Project Director, Sustainable Shenyang Project, Shenyang, PR China. Telephone: +86 2412 484 4985 Fax: +86 2412 485 6104 E-mail: [email protected]

Smolensk C Mr. A.D. Prokhorov, Head of Administration, October Revolution str., 1/2, 214000 Smolensk, Russian Federation*

Sosnowiec C Mr. Michal Czarski, The Honorable Mayor of Sosnowiec, Member of the Union Board, SKAP II, ul. Warszawska 4, 40-006 Katowice, Poland. Telephone: +48 32 253 9210 Fax: +48 32 253 9209 E-mail: [email protected]

Sri Jayewardenapura-Kotte C Mr. Chandra de Silva, Mayor of Sri Jayewardenpura-Kotte, Sri Jayewardenpura-Kotte Municipal Council, Nawala, Rajagiriya, Sri Jayewardenpura-Kotte, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 862 555 Fax: +94 1 862 282

St. Denis C Ms. Michèle Zémor, Mairie adjointe, Mairie de St. Denis, Place de caquet, BP 269, 93205 Saint-Denis cedex, France. Telephone: +33 1 49 33 66 66 Fax: +33 1 49 33 6969/6806 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 68 Stuttgart C Mr. Jürgen Beck, Mayor, Capital City of Stuttgart, Marktplatz 110 60 34, D-70049 Stuttgart, Germany. Telephone: +49-711-216 2467 Fax: +49-711-216 3432 E-mail: [email protected]

Tabora C Mr. Mabala Sali Mboje, Municipal Director, Tabora Municipal Council, PO Box 174, Tabora, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 (0)62 3088 / 4835

Taganrog C Mr. S.I. Shilo, Head of Administration, Lenina str., 75, 347900 Taganrog, Russian Federation*

Tashkent C Kazym Tuljagonov, Mayor of Tashkent, Uzbekistan*

Tbilisi C Badri Shoshitaishvili, Mayor of Tbilisi, Georgia*

Toliatti C Mr. S.F. Zhilkin, Mayor of Toliatti, Centralnaya Square, 4, 445011 Toliatti, Russian Federation*

Tomsk C Mr. A.S. Makarov, Head of Administration, Lenina str., 73, 634050 Tomsk, Russian Federation*

Tula C Mr. S.I. Kasakov, Head of Administration, Lenina str., 2, 300000 Tula, Russian Federation*

Tumen C Mr. S.M. Kirichuk, Head of Administration, Pervomayskaya str., 20, 625000 Tumen, Russian Federation*

Tunis C Mr. Hamaida Omrani, Project Director, Sustainable Tunis Project, 88, Rue Adderrazek Chraibi, 1000 Tunis, Tunisia. Telephone: +216-1-255 737 Fax: +216-1-352 097 C Ms. Narjes Riahi, Project Manager, Sustainable Tunis Project, 88, Rue Abderrazek Chraibi, 1000 Tunis, Tunisia. Telephone: +216-1-255 737 Fax: +216-1-352 097

Turkministan C Pirdjan Kurbanov, Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Turkmenistan*

Tver C Mr. A.P. Belousov, Head of Administration, Sovietskaya str., 11, 170640 Tver, Russian Federation*

Ufa C Mr. F.A. Jamaltdinov, Head of Administration, Octaybraya Prospect, 120, 450098 Ufa, Russian Federation*

Ukraine C Yuri Kostenko, Minister of Environment Protection and Nuclear Safety, The Ukraine* C Vyacheslav Lipinski, Chairman of State Committee for Hydrometeorology, The Ukraine*

Ulaanbaatar C Mr. Ch. Bat, Chief, Strategic Policy and Planning Division of Ulaanbaatar City Government, Sukbaatar square-11, Ulaanbaatar - 46, Mongolia. Telephone: +976 1 324 331 Fax: +976 1 324 331

Uzbekistan

UEF-Euro '98, page 69 C Askbad Khabibullaev, Chairman of State Committee for Environmental Protection, Uzbekistan*

Vladimir C Mr. I.B. Shamov, Head of Local Government, Gorkogo str., 36, 600017 Vladimir, Russian Federation*

Volgograd C Mr. J.V. Chekhov, Head of Administration, Volodarskogo str., 5, 400066 Volgograd, Russian Federation*

Vologda C Mr. A.S. Jakunihev, Head of Administration, Kameniy Most str., 4, 160600 Vologda, Russian Federation*

Voronej C Mr. A.N. Tsapin, Head of Administration, Plekhanovskaya str., 10, 394015 Voronej, Russian Federation*

Wuhan C Ms. Xiuying Zhou, Wuhan Environmental Protection Bureau, No. 12, Tian Mendun, Wuhan 430 015, P.R. China. Telephone: +86-27-578 1430 Fax: +86-27-580 0956 E-mail: [email protected]

Xanthi C Mr. Philippos Amiridis, Mayor of Xanthi, Municipality of Xanthi, 1, Matsini Square, GR 671 00 Xanthi, Greece. Telephone: +30 541 737 47 Fax: +30 541 770 48 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Julie Moraitou, Consultant - EU Affairs Manager, Municipality of Xanthi, 1, Matsini Square, Xanthi GR-671 00, Greece. Telephone: +30 541 775 64 Fax: +30 541 770 48 E-mail: [email protected]

Yaroslavl C Mr. V.V. Volonchunas, Mayor of Yaroslavl, Sovietskaya Square, 3, 150000 Yaroslavl, Russian Federation*

Yoshkar-Ola C Mr. V.V. Koslov, Head of Administration, Lenisky Prospect, 27, 424001 Yoshkar-Ola, Russian Federation*

Zanzibar C Mr. Abdullah S. Abdullah, Commissioner, Ministry of State (President's Office) Planning and Investment, PO Box 874, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Telephone: +255 54 311 69 Fax: +255 54 311 72 C Mr. Ghalib Omar Awadh, Project Coordinator, Commission for Lands and Environment, Zanzibar Sustainable Project, PO Box 3650, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Telephone: +255-54-302 69, 322 88 Fax: +255- 54-310 30

*Cities will be updated with full contact addresses as soon as they are available.

UEF-Euro '98, page 70 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMMES

Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at Local Level (APELL), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Industry and Environment Unit C Ms. Janet Stevens, Programme Coordinator, Tour Mirabeau, 39-43, quai Andre Citroen, F-75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. Telephone: +33-1-44 37 14 31 Fax: +33-1-44 37 14 74 E-mail: [email protected]

Cities of the Future, Federal Agency for Building and Regional Planning C Ms. Elke Pahl-Weber, City Planner, Baumgart & Pahl-Weber, Stadtplannung-Forschung-Beratung, Pras.-Krahn-Str. 19, D-22765 Hamburg, Germany. Telephone: +49 40 385 464 Fax: +49 40 389 3099 E- mail: [email protected]

Cities' State of the Environment on the Internet (CSoEI), UNEP/GRID-Arendal C Mr. Nickolai Denisov, Programme Officer, Myrene, Longum Park, PO Box 1602, N-4801 Arendal, Norway. Telephone: +47-370-35650 Fax: +47-370-35050 E-mail: [email protected]

Department for International Development (DFID), UK Government C Mr. Michael Mutter, Senior Physical Planning Advisor, 94 Victoria St., London SW1E 5Jl, UK. Telephone: +44 171 917 0789 Fax: +44 171 917 0072 E-mail: [email protected]

ECAT - Kaliningrad, Environmental Centres for Administration and Technology C Mr. Guntram Glasbrenner, Ul. Gorkogo 25, Kaliningrad 236040, Russian Federation. Telephone: +7 0112 275 110 Fax: +7 0112 275 110 E-mail: [email protected] C Dr. Ingrid Hofmann, Ul. Gorkogo 25, Kaliningrad, Russia 236040. Telephone: +7 0112 275 380 Fax: +7 0112 275 110 E-mail: [email protected]

Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations C Mr. Guennadi Vinogradov, Human Settlements Officer, Environmental and Human Settlements Division, 8-14, av. de la Paix, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. Telephone: +41 22 917 2374 Fax: +41 22 907 0107 E-mail: [email protected]

Environment Unit, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, World Bank C Mr. Konrad von Ritter, Environment Unit, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA. Telephone: Fax: +1 202 477 3285 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Ezedine Hadj-Mabrouk, Senior Environmental Specialist, Rm H3-101, 1818 H. Street, NW, Washington DC 20433, USA. Telephone: +1 202 473 3187 Fax: +1 202 522 1164 E-mail: [email protected]

European Academy of the Urban Environment C Mr. Harald Fietz, Bismarckallee 46-48, D-14193 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 89 59 990 / 23 Fax: +49 30 89 59 99 19 E-mail: [email protected]

DG 8, European Commission C Mr. Michael Parkes, Urban Development Advisor, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium. Telephone: +32 2 295 4557 Fax: +32 2 296 6472 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 71 European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign C Mr. Anthony Payne, Campaign Coordinator, Rue du Cornet 22, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. Telephone: +32 2 230 5351 Fax: +32 2 230 8850 E-mail: [email protected]

Greenpeace Russia C Mr. Ivan Blokov, Campaign Director, 101428, Novaya Boshilovka str. 6GSP-4, Moscow, Russia. Telephone: +7 095 257 4106 Fax: +7 095 257 4110 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Alexey Kiselev, Toxics Campaign Director, 101428, Novaya Boshilovka str, 6GSP-4, Moscow, Russia. Telephone: +7 095 257 41 16 Fax: +7 095 257 41 10 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Alexander Shuvalov, Novaya Boshilovka str, 6GSP 4, 101428 Moscow, Russia. Telephone: +7 095 257 41 16 Fax: +7 095 257 41 10 C Mr. Serguei Tsyplenkov, Executive Director, Novaya Bashilovka str, 6GSP 4, 101428 Moscow , Russia. Telephone: +7 095 257 41 16 Fax: +7 095 257 41 10 E-mail: [email protected]

Healthy Cities Project, World Health Organization (WHO-Europe) C Dr. Mark McCarthy, Consultant, 8 Scherfigsvej, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Telephone: +45 39 17 12 72 Fax: +45 39 17 18 60 E-mail: [email protected]

Integrity in Urban Governance, Transparency International C Dr. Peter Eigen, Chairperson, Otto-Suhr-Allee 97-99, D-10585 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 343 8200 Fax: +49 30 3470 3912 E-mail: [email protected] C Prof. Dieter Biallas, Senior Advisor, Otto-Suhr-Allee 97-99, D-10585 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 343 8200 Fax: +49 30 34 70 3912 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Cornel Christoffel, Chairperson of the Berlin Anti-Corruption Working Group, City of Berlin, Department for Justice, Salzburger Str. 21 - 25, D-10825 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 78 76 3344 Fax: +49 30 78 76 3242 C Mr. Michael Lippe, Otto-Suhr-Allee 97 - 99, 10585 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 343 8200 Fax: +49 30 347 3512 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Carmen Thiele, Programme Officer, Otto-Suhr-Allee 97 - 99, D-10585 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 343 8200 Fax: +49 30 3470 3912 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Sergej Tscherejkin, Programme Officer, Otto-Suhr-Allee 97 - 99, D-10585 Berlin, Germany. Telephone: +49 30 343 8200 Fax: +49 30 347 03912 E-mail: [email protected]

International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) C Ms. Lilia Casanova, Deputy Director, 2-110 Ryokuchi Koen, Tsurumi-ku, Osaka 538, Japan. Telephone: +81-6-915 4585/84 Fax: +81-6-915 0304 E-mail: [email protected]

International Resource Cities Program, International City/Country Management Association C Ms. Deborah Kimble, Senior Advisor for Municipal Development, International Division, 777 North Capital Street, Washington, DC, USA. Telephone: +1 202 962 3516 Fax: +1 202 962 3681 E-mail: [email protected]

Localising Agenda 21 Programme , UNCHS(Habitat) C Mr. Raf Tuts, Programme Manager, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254 2 623726 Fax: 254 2 624265 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 72 Mediterranean Action Plan/UNEP, Centro di Telerilevamento Mediterraneo C Mr. Michele Raimondi, Managing Director, 2, Via G. Giusti, 90144 Palermo, Italy. Telephone: +39 91 342 368 Fax: +39 91 308 512 E-mail: [email protected]

Mediterranean Action Plan/UNEP C Mr. Arab Hoballah, Deputy Coordinator, Vas. Konstantinou 48PO Box 18019, 11610 Athens, Greece. Telephone: +301 727 3126 Fax: +301 725 3196 / 7 E-mail: [email protected]

Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme C Dr. Ravi Pereira, National Programme Coordinator, MEIP, 3rd Floor, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Telephone: +94 1 863 954 Fax: +94 1 863 905 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Bebet Gozun, National Programme Coordinator,MEIP, 2/F Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources Building, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Metro Manila, The Philippines. Telephone: +632 928 2965 Fax: +632 928 2965 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Ministere delegere a la cooperation et a la Francophonie, ISTED C Ms. Chantal Barbieux, Chargee Pole "Ville", 1 bis avenue de Villars, 75007 Paris, France. Telephone: +33 1 44 18 63 94 Fax: +33 1 45 55 78 82 E-mail: [email protected]

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Italy (DGCS) C Ms. Anna Maria Ceci, Planner, Via Contarini 25, I-00194 Roma, Italy. Telephone: +39-6-3691 4164 Fax: +39-6-324 0585 E-mail: [email protected]

Municipal and Urban Development, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) C Mr. Gerd Sippel, Senior Advisor, PO Box 5180, Eschborn, Germany. Telephone: +49 6196 79 1629 Fax: +49 6196 79 7169 E-mail: [email protected]

Public Private Partnerships for Urban Infrastructure, Sustainable Project Management C Mr. Baudouin de Selliers, Associate, Route du Village 28, 1066 Epalinges, Switzerland. Telephone: +41 21 784 34 09 Fax: +41 21 784 30 55 E-mail: [email protected]

Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) and UEF Secretariat, UNCHS(Habitat)/UNEP: C Mr. Jean-Christophe Adrian, SCP Advisor, Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 3228 Fax: +254-2-62 4263/4 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Paul Bongers, Consultant, Saxonhurst House, Gurgates, Wadhurst, East Sussex TN5 6RT, UK. Telephone: +44 1892 783 417 Fax: +44 1892 783 417 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Elizabeth Case, Secretariat, Urban Environment Forum, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 4205 Fax: +254-2-62 3715 E-mail: [email protected] C Ms. Eleanor Cody, SCP Information Officer, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 3784 Fax: +254-2-62 4263/4 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Bernd Decker, Junior Professional Officer, Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 3191 Fax: +254-2-62 4263/4 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Rob de Jong, Junior Professional Officer, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 4184 Fax: +245-2-62 3715 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Jochen Eigen, Coordinator, PO Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 3225 Fax: +254-2-62 3715, 62 4263/4 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Douglas McCallum, SCP Consultant, McCallum Consultancy, Mossknowe, Blairmore, Argyll PA23 8TJ, U.K.. Telephone: +44-1369-840 535 Fax: +44-1369-840 799 E-mail: [email protected] C Mr. Chris Radford, Senior Sustainable Cities Programme Advisor, Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254-2-62 3541 Fax: +254-2-62 4263/4 E-mail: [email protected]

Sustainable London Trust C Prof. Herbert Girardet, 93 Cambridge Gardens, W10 GJE, London, UK. Telephone: +44 181 969 6375 Fax: +44 181 960 2202 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 73 Tacis City Twinning Programme , Eurocities C Ms. Isabella Haaf, 18 Square de Meeus, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Telephone: +32 2 552 0871 Fax: +32 2 522 0889 E-mail: [email protected]

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Headquarters C Ms. Elisabeth Guilbaud-Cox, Coordinator, Special Events, Information for Public Affairs, PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254 2 62 3401 Fax: +254 2 62 3692 E-mail: elisabeth.guilbaud- [email protected] C Mr. Klaus Töpfer, Under Secretary General of the United Nations, Executive Director, UNEP and UNCHS (Habitat), PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya. Telephone: +254 2 62 1234 Fax: +254 2 22 6890

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Office for Europe C Mr. Frits Schlingemann, Director for Europe, 15 Chemin des Anemones, 1219 Chatelaine,Geneva, Switzerland. Telephone: +41 22 979 9291 Fax: +41 22 797 3420 E-mail: [email protected]

Urban Development Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank C Mr. Keshva Varma, Head, 1818 H Street NW, MC8 363, Washington, DC, USA. Telephone: +1 202 458 5972 Fax: +1 202 522 1787 E-mail: [email protected]

Urban Programs and Environment, USAID, Central and Eastern Europe C Ms. Melissa Pailthorp, Officer, Urban Programs Officer, Al. Jerozolimskie 56C, 00-803 Warsaw, Poland. Telephone: +48 22 630 2480 Fax: +48 22 628 74 86 E-mail: [email protected]

Urban Waste Expertise Programme , WASTE, Advisors on Urban Environment and Development C Mr. Dan Lapid, Regional Coordinator for Southeast Asia, Room 202, Loyola Heights Condominium, Esteban Abada corner F. dela Rosa St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, The Philippines. Telephone: +632 434 5573 Fax: +632 434 5954 E-mail: [email protected]

Urbanisation and Human Settlements Programme , Centre for Environment and Development in the Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE) C Dr. Ossama S. Salem, Program Associate, 21/23 Giza Street, Nile Tower Building -13th Floor, Orman, PO Box 52 , Cairo, Egypt. Telephone: +20-2-570 1859/3474/0979 Fax: +20-2-570 3242 E-mail: [email protected]

UEF-Euro '98, page 74

Table of Contents