Erfurt (Germany), 26-28 February 1997
1. Approximately 350 delegates from 29 European countries and beyond - elected representatives of national, regional and local levels of administration, police, magistrates, sociologists, welfare officers, representatives of the university and teaching professions, architects and town planners, and representatives of other professional disciplines concerned by the theme - met in Erfurt on 26-28 February 1997 for the International Conference on "Crime and Urban Insecurity: the role and responsibilities of local and regional authorities".
2. The Conference was organised by the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, in collaboration with the Free State of Thuringia and the City of Erfurt, Germany.
3. The Conference was structured around the following three themes:
- A Review of the Current Situation;
- The Role and Responsibilities of Local and Regional Authorities;
- International Collaboration between local and regional authorities;
and was illustrated by reports and case studies drawn from a wide variety of cities and institutions, inside and outside Europe.
4. The Erfurt Conference took place 10 years after the major crime prevention Conference organised by the CLRAE in Barcelona in 1987 - ten years during which major social, economic and political changes have taken place in Europe.
*
* *
Following their debates, the participants:
Concerning the causes, scope and impact of crime
5. Welcome the preliminary report by Mr Ries, Rapporteur of the CLRAE, presented at the 1996 Plenary Session of the CLRAE and the accompanying Resolution in which a number of problems and local authority solutions were identified.
6. Recall that crime, fear of crime and urban insecurity in Europe are major problems affecting the public as a whole and political leaders of contemporary Europe and that finding satisfactory solutions for them is one of the main keys to civic peace and stability.
7. Wish to highlight, in particular, the dramatic increase in crime, particularly the incidence of juvenile crime; the increasingly young age of offenders; the increase in petty crime and anti-social behaviour.
8. Consider that amongst the principal causes of crime are: economic change and/or decline; increased opportunities and decreased social control; social deprivation and exclusion; a poor or monotonous physical environment; inadequate housing; family problems; harmful effects of TV violence; generations and ethnic groups which do not respect differentials; frustration through inaccessibility to high levels of material wealth.
9. Consider furthermore that, in the public there is a growing disenchantment with the political process and the political system as a means for redressing some of the current main problems of European society.
10. Aware that current legal practice and structures are not always sufficiently adapted to protect citizens adequately; that the criminal justice system is not always seen as a sufficient deterrent; and that recent organisational and legal developments in crime policy have not halted crime.
11. Note that political and social change in a greater Europe, over the last five to six years, with a consequent breakdown of political frontiers, greater freedom of movement and mobility, has also resulted in a change in the type of crime, for example, high incidence of drug abuse and drug offences; racist attacks; a spectacular extension and sophistication of international organised crime; illegal smuggling of immigrants and clandestine immigration; economic fraud; diverting of raw materials; covert arms dealing, etc:
12. Note that political changes have not always been accompanied by corresponding administrative changes, thus preventing police, for example, from coping effectively with transborder crime.
13. Draw attention to the impact of the concentration of criminal activity along new borders, arising from the division between parts of Europe into Schengen and non-Schengen areas.
14. Express concern that such developments undermine public confidence in the democratic process, stimulate extremist movements, can provoke an anti-European sentiment and threaten human rights and democratic institutions.
15. Recall that the European Urban Charter asserts the basic right for citizens of European towns to "a secure and safe town free, as far as possible, from crime, delinquency and aggression" and that this basic right to a safe community has been enshrined into many national and local crime prevention programmes.
16. Believe that crime prevention encourages social and economic regeneration and that a safer community means local prosperity.
17. Aware that many urban planners and designers believe that the social stability of towns and cities is influenced by the environment and that although "design against crime" cannot resolve crime and insecurity problems, it can reduce the opportunities for crime to occur.
18. Consider that whilst national authorities have a major responsibility for combating crime, it is principally at the local level where the impact of crime is felt and local authorities, accordingly, have significant responsibilities in combating crime and in crime prevention. Local crime problems require local solutions.
19. Wish therefore to call for the strengthening of local government, local democracy and subsidiarity in Europe, along the lines of the European Charter of Local Self-Government; and for strengthening specifically of local government responsibilities for crime prevention, accompanied by appropriate financial resources.
*
* *
20. Recommend that local and regional authorities in Europe:
21. Develop integrated crime prevention action plans, with continuing public involvement, in which crime prevention is included as a policy in all aspects of the responsibilities of local authorities. Such a plan should define the nature and type of crime to be tackled, objectives, timetable, proposals for action and be based on a wide ranging up-to-date survey of statistics and diagnosis of crime;
22. Consider crime prevention as a joint responsibility of different sectors of society and therefore encourage the development of multisectoral bodies for combating crime at a local level, and a broad-based, balanced multi-agency approach or co-ordination of public authorities, politicians, the private and voluntary sectors, media, universities and the police;
23. Consider that such a joint approach should be a combination of national and local authority policies for solidarity, prevention, dissuasion and repression.
24. Pursue stronger collaboration with the police e.g., partnership in decisions about police zoning and timing of local beats and mobile patrols; advising citizens on reduction of opportunities for crime and theft; joint discussions with judicial authorities on prosecution policy; devising educational efforts aimed at groups of young people;
25. Discourage the proliferation of independent security forces, promoting instead the establishment and/or strengthening of police forces with clear responsibilities, adequate finance, a high standard of technical equipment;
26. Encourage the participation of the public in crime prevention, through neighbourhood watch schemes, and other mechanisms which encourage citizens to stand up for their beliefs and protect their own safety and welfare in collaboration with public authorities;
27. Strengthen informal social control through appropriate policies for a mix of residential/commercial functions, adequate shopping facilities in housing areas, juxtaposition of schools and residential homes, etc.
28. Take active steps to eradicate known criminal activities in particular areas within their municipal boundaries and avoid creating disadvantaged and deprived sectors of society, particularly those who feel they have nothing to lose;
29. Promote and reward civic courage, for example, in guaranteeing the protection of witnesses;
30. Take particular steps to improve the physical urban environment (lighting, open space, reduction of graffiti, litter) in the belief that an unsatisfactory environment is one of the causes of crime; and prepare and distribute explanatory brochures for the public on such causal relationships;
31. Promote collaboration between the police and professional designers and ensure that police officers are specially trained to advise on the relationship between crime and the built environment;
32. Devise and conduct drug abuse programmes, in partnership with health and social services; develop information programmes particularly for young people inside and outside schools and mobilise the local community as a whole in order to reduce drug demand;
33. Collaborate with judicial authorities in developing alternatives to incarceration, e.g., community service and develop victim aid and support programmes;
34. Promote awareness of crime prevention in education and youth programmes; pass on values to young people; promote sporting and recreational activities, particularly in deprived urban areas; and devise programmes of support for young people to enable them to adjust to changing social circumstances;
35. Encourage the local manufacturing and commercial industries to carry out situational prevention, i.e., measures to reduce opportunities to commit offences and to increase the chance of detection;
36. Conduct strategies aimed at reducing public concern about crime and fear of crime associated with travelling on bus, cab, underground or rail or by walking, cycling or driving. The provision of safe transport and safe routes to and from key transport venues is an important objective for local authorities and a key factor affecting an individual's quality of life;
37. Promote the establishment of transborder co-operation on crime prevention and crime control between local and regional authorities.
38. Ask the CLRAE to:
39. Organise further conferences/seminars on specific aspects of crime, particularly on: (a) the relationship between local authority policies for crime prevention and economic change; (b) the impact of the physical urban environment on crime (c) local authorities/police co-operation; (d) local and regional transfrontier collaboration on crime prevention and control;
40. Prepare a guide or manual for the attention of local authorities on good practice and solutions to crime, bearing in mind the debates and results of the current Conference; and subsequently to consider the preparation of a European Charter on Local and Regional Authorities Policies for Crime Prevention;
41. Consider the feasibility of proposing/preparing a campaign against urban crime in Europe;
42. Encourage partnerships between towns on crime prevention, particularly those with innovative, successful approaches, as presented at the Conference, for example, by representatives from Northumbria, Lübeck and Brussels;
43. Take note of the results of the present Conference and incorporate them into the report and Resolution to be prepared for the 1997 Session of the CLRAE Chamber of Local Authorities.
44. Ask the Committee of Ministers to:
45. Include crime and urban insecurity on the agenda of the forthcoming second Summit of Heads of State of member countries, October 1997;
46. Involve fully the CLRAE in the "new initiatives" programme proposed by the Secretary General on crime problems in Central and Eastern European countries;
47. Invite member countries, which have not yet done so, to ratify the relevant European treaties or Conventions providing for interstate co-operation on criminal matters, including the lifting of bank secrecy as a step in combating organised crime;
48. Ask respective national authorities to lift impediments in the way of local and regional transborder co-operation on crime prevention and control.