Prof.Eberhard Goepel, University of Applied Sciences , Magdeburg

1
Prof.Eberhard Goepel, University of Applied
Sciences , Magdeburg

• Local Agenda 21 as a linkage of environment
  and health politics at the local level ?
• Investigations in Germany

2
Integrative , participatory local programmes

• Healthy Cities Network
• WHO 1988
  62 Cities
• 2. Local Agenda 21
• UN Conference in Rio de Janeiro 1992
• 
  1.532 Municipalities
• Social Cities
• Federal Ministry for Regional Development
• 
  95 Cities

3
Strategic questions

• What are the commonalities and differences
  between these programmes ?
• Does it make sense to the actors to merge these
  programmes ? What could be the encompassing
  theme ?
• Or should there rather be an alliance of
  distinctive, but cooperating programmes and
  actors?

4
Project Group Health promoting, social inclusive
and sustainable Urban development

• Members
• German Institute for Urban Development, Berlin
• Agenda 21 Clearinghouse , Bonn
• State Institute for Public Health NRW, Bielefeld
• University of Hamburg
• University of Applied Sciences , Magdeburg
• www.difu.de

5
Methods of the investigation 2004-2005

• Extensive literature review
• Interview-based case study analysis of
• 4 model cities
• 3. A questionnaire- based survey of the
  responsible persons in health and in
  environmental departments at the city level
• (N 323 Response rate 52 )
• A questionaire-based inquiry with the Ministries
  of Health and the Ministries for the Environment
  states (Laender)
• Interviews with experts in strategic political
  positions (Politicians, Experts )

6
Main results 1

• 1. There is a severe lack of communication
  between the Health , the Enviroment and
• Social Affairs Departments at all levels
  of political and administrative responsibility
  (Cities, States, Federal level).
• There is a severe lack of capacity in the
  administration to work with community
  initiatives and to engage constructively in
  participatory programmes like Healty Cities,
• Social Cities or Local Agenda 21

7
Main results 2

1. Information on models of good practice and
   public fora for exchange of experiences and
   achievements are seen as motivating
   contributions to improve the perceived
   administrative deficiencies
2. Organisational reforms and capacity building at
   the local level are seen as crucial for the
   coordination of integrated programmes

8
Main results 3

• 4. Scientific support (e.g. scientific reports ,
  
• Indicator development - is seen as
• potentially helpful, but not as main
  priority )
• 5. There is an ambivalent attitude in the public
  
• administration towards participatory
• programmes at the local level

9
Main results 4

• There is an expressed interest to engage in
• integrative programmes , but little
  confidence in successful implementation
• There is no evidence , that a new
• Meta- Programme could solve this
• problem, unless there is a strong and
  sufficient political support for far reaching
  capacity building processes and orgnisational
  reforms at all
• political and administrative levels in
  Germany.

10
Conclusions

• International consensus building processes
• and programmes like the Healthy Cities or
  the Local Agenda 21 programme have had a
  definite motivational effect at the national
  level - but they have to be combined with
  systematic capacity building processes especially
  within the public sector to become successful.
• The professionalization of the public
  administration is a crucial factor.
• International organizations like the IUHPE can
  mediate crosscutting communication and capacity
  building and support these processes

11
Good luck!