In Defense of Agenda 21 For Culture

     There are many documents that reach the hands of the local government authorities for them to sign and ratify throughout the day, but how many of the important and really useful ones get signed is another aspect to be argued. The main objective of the local governments and the cities of the world are to maintain a democratic atmosphere for the diverse ideas to co-exist with one another and to protect the well being of their citizens. With this main objective in mind, many local government authorities get swamped up with the daily worries of the city residents and the needs concerning their city, while the tiny matters overshadow what’s most important; democracy and well being. Anthony Haas in his article “Democracy and Well Being” states the goals and purposes of the local government as such,

Local government can: improve the local environment, promote urban design, provide and develop local open space and recreation facilities, set strategic policy directions, prepare annual plans, budgets, long-term council community plans, policies and plans under various Acts; e.g., transport, resource management, act on behalf of other principals such as central government (e.g., as district liquor licensing agent, and distributing local grants), reflect diversity in the choices made by each local council on the roles it undertakes, administer responsibilities under laws and regulations, e.g., building, food, administer consents under local policies and plans, regulate local nuisances such as animal and pest control, fund roads, water, waste disposal, parks, rubbish collection, libraries and other services, oversee the delivery of services, provide an infrastructural and planning framework in which communities can grow and the economy can flourish, coordinate with other agencies operating locally; e.g., Employment Service, Police, assist businesses (local employment generation), promote cultural and sporting events, promote local visitor and tourism events, coordinate initiatives such as safer communities councils, listen to and consult with communities, develop and advance community viewpoints, define and enforce appropriate rights within communities, provide for effective participation.

There are number of ways to handle the process of determining the priorities by the authorities, but the most efficient method would be to get involved in a collective action alongside with the other local authorities and the cities of the world that would provide assistance as to define the priorities of a government authority without losing track of the daily tasks and duties. Such a collective commitment was made in Barcelona in 2004 within the framework of the Universal Forum of Cultures. The framework requires a commitment to “human rights, cultural diversity, sustainability, participatory democracy and the creation of conditions for peace” as stated in the Agenda 21 itself. After reviewing the agreement, one can clearly claim that there’s a reference to sustainable development that is enabled by the methods provided in the document. Any government authority must be interested in practicable methods to obtain sustainable development mainly for the purpose of public’s well being. The evidence to willing local governments is found in numerous cities in 135 countries all around the world that have signed and began implementing Agenda 21.

The fact that so many local governments and cities are applying the Agenda 21 into their governmental structure is, without a doubt, an enforcement for other local governments to sign the agreement and implement the objectives stated in the agreement, but it’s not enough without understanding what Agenda 21 for Culture suggests and provides for the new local authorities that decide to sign the agreement. Therefore, a brief introduction to the agreement is necessary. The Agenda 21 for Culture defines culture as one of the most important tools for reaching sustainable development. Of course, without respecting and maintaining cultural diversity, culture as a tool for sustainable development is invalid. Therefore, it urges multicultural societies to embrace the diversity and create their local government policies with regards to the cultural diversity that exists in their community. The document suggests that the cultural heritage of the world and nations are created through the diversity that exists within the countries and consequently in the world. As a result, Agenda 21 for Culture refers to cultural diversity as “the main heritage of humanity”. Alongside with cultural diversity, environment as a source of environmental sustainability is also referred to as a heritage of humanity and that economic models endanger environmental sustainability, while globalization endangers cultural diversity. In light of this approach towards environment and cultural diversity, the role of local governments and city authorities are defined as “worldwide agents” that have to defend human rights through transparent and public participatory governance models. Agenda 21 for Culture state that for the safeguarding of democracy, cultural rights should be seen as a part of human rights, which are protected by the universal law and agreements. It recognizes that intolerance is the main approach that threatens conditions for peace if we overcome it through cultural development strategies. The agreement continues by claiming that “full human development” is only possible through cultural invention and creative diversity that is achieved in local spaces and cities.

The quality of local development, as stated in Agenda 21 for Culture, is maintained through combined cultural and other public strategies while securing equilibrium between private and public interests. The secured equilibrium will grant appropriate economic evaluation of cultural goods and will promote production from diverse cultures, overcoming possible identity issues. The lack of cultural production is one of the factors that result in loss of cultural diversity and erosion of certain diverse cultures within a community. A consequence of the extinction of a culture, there appears the loss of identity, which may result in radical forms of outrage. To constrain such violent outcomes, local governments are expected to treat their citizens without discrimination and promote all sorts of cultural production and information transfer as cultural acts through their local government policies. Another aspect of their duties, is to protect the cultures and cultural productions that are faced with extinction due to the fact that they have been unprotected through the years. This protection can be granted through providing funds or through services for such cultures to safely, express themselves. In this sense, the centralization of cultural policies is also a threat to cultural diversity and should be eliminated through decentralized governance forms adopted by the local governments. These requirements stated in the Agenda 21 for Culture are some specific examples of the encouraged approach to be adopted by the local government authorities that would also, improve their governing skills. There are also, recommendations for the local governments, state and national governments, United Nations programmes and agencies, international organizations and finally, for the intergovernmental and supranational organizations. These recommendations are, though they each refer to a specific party alone, if fulfilled by each party, work together for visible action to be taken in global level and for successfully securing cultural diversity and environment all around the world.

Furthermore, if the local governments and why they have decided to sign the Agenda 21 for Culture is viewed, the local governments that have not signed the agreement can be convinced about the advantages of the agreement. To begin with, the overwhelming majority of the local governments that have signed the Agenda 21 for Culture are European countries. Since united by the European Union, these European countries find no problem with the idea of forming networks among the local governments in their cities and cities in other countries. They have signed the agreement in order to legitimize the sharing process of common experiences or assistance they receive in governmental matters. They have also received assistance in protecting cultural heritage and prioritizing the local matters according to their importance. The city governments that have signed the agreement also have other motives such as prestige. Signing Agenda 21 for Culture and implementing the requirements of the document means that the city and its local government are respecting human rights and cultural diversity as a part of these rights. It means that the local government is well aware of its primary duties as protecting and promoting the democracy within the society and to preserve the local citizens’ well being. It is quite important all over the world for institutions to understand and fulfill their job descriptions and to take it further if possible. Such qualities reassure their local authority and the viability of the institution in people’s perceptions.

Moreover, the question that needs to be answered is why a local government that has not signed the agreement so far, should sign it. As mentioned above, there are several desired qualities captured with the Agenda 21 for Culture but the positive outcomes specific to the signatory governments might be more interesting for the local governments that are considering the agreement. First of all, for a country that is not a member of the European Union and that wishes to become one, it must be underlined that EU gives great importance to Agenda 21 in their inspections on the country. The document clearly reminds the local governments that they care about human rights and cultural diversity while showing efforts to protect it. This principle is not something extraordinary for any local government that is under the oath of protecting democracy and well being of its citizens with respect to human rights and international laws. With signing the Agenda 21 for Culture, there’s a certain degree of prestige that most governments would work very hard to achieve through other means. The element of prestige, as explained above, comes from the fact that most citizens know and highly cherish human rights and they give importance to a democratic and fair society that is created by unbiased, non-racist and proactive government policies. In countries that are struggling with the accusations of poor human rights protections and implementations, adopting Agenda 21 for Culture in the local scale might be a solution to such accusations.

Countries or local governments may have experienced some unfortunate instances such as economical crises or internal disputes in their recent past and it’s known for a fact that such incidents create intolerance and insecurity in public. A way to overcome such negative feelings arising from the public can be defeated through the establishment of a tolerant and secure environment for all citizens by the public authorities. The roadmap provided by the Agenda 21 for Culture is exactly what is defined above with the tolerant and secure environment for all citizens regardless of their origin.

Finally, it is believed by many people that along with the decrease in natural resources, the lack of cultural diversity results with the inability to achieve sustainable development. Through acquired stakeholders and partners provided by the Agenda 21 for Culture, the actions to protect natural resources and cultural diversity in social environment can be much easier to maintain. Ensuring sustainable development can easily secure the governing positions for the near future to those, who are already in charge of local governing.

Evidently, a simple signature to Agenda 21 for Culture grants many opportunities for both local governments and the citizens living in these local spaces. Of course, along with signing the agreement, the local authorities have to undertake the responsibilities they agree upon in the agreement. Fortunately, the responsibilities stated in the agreement are not impossible deeds or are they useless for the benefit of governing bodies and the local society. Therefore, a local government would gain more from adopting the context of the Agenda 21 for Culture as a guiding tool than ignoring the principles stated in the agreement.