By Nathan Johnson
Gino Van Begin, ICLEI's regional director for Europe, was in Skopje, FYR Macedonia on October 29-30 to speak at a regional conference entitled 'Crafting Sustainable Communities in South-Eastern Europe'. Green Horizon's Nathan Johnson spoke with Van Begin shortly before a forum of mayors from throughout the region (i.e., Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo (as defined under UNSCR 1244), Montenegro, and Serbia) convened to sign the Aalborg Commitments, a highly regarded policy statement for local sustainable development worldwide.
ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) is, according to its global website, "an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organisations who have made a commitment to sustainable development. ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level."
Tell our readers a little bit about your professional background.
I was born in Belgium, studied Law, and graduated from the University of Brussels in 1987. I went from there to the EC's Directorate General I - External Relations - from there to Directorate General XI - Environment. In 1993 I went to Russia, helping to set up EU LIFE-funded Environmental Centres in Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg. I joined ICLEI in January 2000, became Regional Director for Europe in 2002, and was appointed ICLEI's Deputy Secretary-General in 2007.
What brings you to this particular event, and what do you feel is the underlying significance of this conference for this region?
This conference is a milestone for local sustainability in the SEE region. This is a region that was severely struck by conflict and is now undertaking immense efforts in a necessary process of reconstruction and integration with other nations and the people of Europe.
Is ICLEI new to Central and South-Eastern Europe, and is there a working relationship between the REC and your organisation?
ICLEI has 15 offices throughout the world, one on every continent. The European office is based in Freiburg, Germany. We don't have any plans to establish an ICLEI office in the Balkan region, but we rather prefer to work in partnership with other organisations in the area. The REC is our preferred partner here and we try to help to raise funds together for various projects. Of course, we have a growing interest in the Balkans because of the EU accession process. As an example, we're now in the process of arranging a conference in Serbia for 2011, and we will ask the REC to help bring in speakers, so it's very much a common approach.
What's your overall perspective on this region from an SD point of view?
Overall perspective on the sustainability situation remains difficult here. I think the region is still struggling, all in all, and at all levels: economic development, social development, democracy. This whole package of problems presents significant barriers to sustainability. Something like signing the Aalborg Commitments is a very nice expression of a commitment to go forward, but compared to other countries and cities in other countries, serious steps forward still need to be taken. Enhanced cooperation and openness towards other pioneering members of ICLEI in Europe, for example, may be helpful in this regard.
Related to your presentation here [on Oct. 29], you said that ICLEI member cities have to be 'active'. What are ICLEI's criteria for action, and how is activity monitored?
We're striving to fill in such defining criteria. We have set up a number of mechanisms and evaluation tools for what we call Agenda 21 planning, but the problems we or our member cities face today are increasing so much and have become so diverse. If you just look at the 20 years in which we've been operating, there is a much larger package of issues that need to be dealt with. Twenty years ago ICLEI and our member cities have been focusing on traditional issues such as water, focusing on waste, and air quality. And surely those issues still need to be tackled and managed, but we now have to look into climate mitigation. We have to look into adaptation and renewable energy. We have to look into new ways of waste prevention, waste reuse and recycling. Biodiversity is an increasingly common issue.
And growth in the number of issues has made analysis a much more complex matter, has it not?
Absolutely. And here we've established the connection to globalisation. We knew 20 years ago, for example, that population growth and energy needs would be key issues, but it was more difficult to anticipate the degree to which so many problems would be interrelated. This is now becoming clearer, and it's a horrifying picture. And this has manifested itself in increased political pressure on government leaders. There is a need for exchanges and for talking to each other.
How are we best to understand the relationship between globalisation and urbanisation?
I'm unsure as to which came first, rather like the chicken or the egg, but there is definitely an interrelationship. And I think we're in a situation now that we weren't talking about in, say, 1992. We weren't talking about globalisation. Today, it is indeed surprising to see how countries can and are being attacked economically. We certainly had wars in the past, but not the situation today in which the private sector, the banking sector and shareholders can basically ruin a country. Now, I'm not quite sure if these kinds of threats are linked to the phenomena of urbanisation, but one thing I'm sure of is that cities have emerged as the epicentres of modern economic development. Cities are where money is made. It's no longer on the farm, is it?
Is there any reason to believe that discussions this winter in Cancun, Mexico will be any more successful than those last year in Copenhagen?
No, not in terms of reaching international consensus on climate change. We are following these negotiations very closely, and I will go to Cancun. There might be some progress made on issues such as deforestation and adaptation. I hope there will be an agreement on financing, and that would be the only way for countries like Brazil, Mexico, India to proceed in a line that's also in our interests. They just won't be willing sign some binding agreement without financial support.
Again, related to your talk earlier, do you think that a municipal approach toward solving urban problems can be more effective than so-called state intervention?
Yes. In my opinion, the only entities that are truly operating in a global way are the banks, construction companies and car companies. However, automobile and construction companies are the major elements of today's urbanisation issues and problems. And as we have seen, investment banking has caused serious threats to global, national and local economies throughout the world. Generally speaking, in most cities, all major 'sustainability' issues can be reduced to those of transportation, housing and building or construction. Local leaders need to understand that if they deal only with these particular sectors, then they are locking themselves into a system that will play out like everywhere else, and in my view that's not a way to develop competitiveness. In future, demand will not only be for clean water and clean air and waste prevention; people will be asking for reduced distances to work, cheaper and more convenient access to food, housing that consumes less energy. And if these demands are not taken into account in how you plan your city, or how you plan extensions of your city, you'll have problems.
You mentioned that 'competition' and 'competitiveness' play important roles in sustainable development.
Sure, but we're not talking here about countries competing with each other. We're really talking about competition between the major financial centres like London and New York and Shanghai. Why, for example, is Shanghai anticipating a population of up to 20 million people in the coming years? Why is Tokyo already at 22 million? The economic attractiveness of these cities is a factor, obviously, but so is the actual or perceived quality of life. But these cities are now seeing the consequences - good or bad - of how they've planned their cities over the past 20 or 25 years. But European cities for the most part have a different way dealing with such things. Europe is where cities were actually born, before even any nation was born. There's a much longer tradition here of people thinking about things like 'quality of life', but nonetheless, problems here are in many ways the same.
