Day II

Tools for Cities, Urban Renewal and Prevention

ICPC’s Deputy Director Daniel Sansfaçon gave the first presentation, providing direction towards finding answers to many of the contemporary challenges being faced by practitioners. Daniel noted that at the federal level, everything is defined by and for the state, but at the city level, the state tends to maintains a role but works in collaboration with diverse actors. City level actors have more contact with the community, and they can operate on macro as well as micro levels. In addition, they are often able to identify risk factors and respond to public demands. In the 1980s, cities developed a sense of responsibility for crime prevention. Now what’s needed is the establishment of mechanisms that ensure long-term co-ordination between the various city sectors. Tools for city strategies include: city contracts, integrated initiatives, and the development of strategic action plans. A major challenge to the success of city level initiatives is the general attitude that security  is the domain of policing. This attitude effectively impedes citizen involvement and disempowers local co-ordinators.

The second presenter of Day II was Sophie Neuforge, project officer for the city of Liège, Belgium. She related how during the 1980s in Belgium, crime prevention programmes at the city level were developed as administrative policies. In 1992, the first city contracts were introduced, representing an integrative approach to crime prevention. Under these contracts, the federal government prepares the implementation of its priorities, informing citizens, addressing school drop-out rates, fighting drugs and drug addiction, and constantly reviewing programs to make sure that they are adapting to changing societal dynamics. The contracts cover a period of two years, and are signed between eligible cities and the federal government. Eligible cities are those that tend to be characterised by populations of more than 60,000, with high crime levels and low socio-economic indices. Sophie observed that the challenges include competition between the big and small cities: people in small cities tend to lack the services offered by the big cities, causing them a certain amount of exodus. Another unintended consequence is that the exodus sometimes suits some mayors of smaller cities as it saves them from having to implement the programs. Local and federal government priorities also clash at times.

The final presentation for the Tools for Cities topic was given by Mr. Patricio Tudela, who is an advisor to the National Chief of Civil Police, Chile. Drawing on his knowledge of GIS crime mapping policy in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Colombia, he looked at how crime mapping can serve as an invaluable tool for cities. He noted that transferring political power to communities for resolving insecurity is no easy task, and gaining access to information at the community level is a key first step. Crime mapping technology is therefore increasingly in demand at the community level, since communities are looking for better responses to crime, more accountability from the security forces, and their own empowerment in preventing crime. Numerous challenges remain, including: a lack of training and analysis capacity, technological imbalances between the police and the community, programs with geographical codification, gaps between GIS practice and theory, and a lack of information on infrastructure and demographics. Nonetheless, despite the challenges it seems that GIS is being transferred and used intensively in many cities. It is contributing strongly towards building communities through empowerment and good governance. 

Carolyn Andrew, Dean of the University of Ottawa’s Social Sciences Department, gave the next intervention on Women’s Safety, describing Canada’s experience in the area. She outlined the process of creating partnerships between municipalities and women’s organisations, including provisions for ensuring that women’s issues are included on the municipal agenda. She pointed out that women are the experts of their reality and can be seen as ‘safety agents’ which can provide gender-sensitive critiques of city planning. The city of Montreal’s experience in this regard helped to illustrate her points. She drew from Montreal’s Guide d’aménagement sécuritaire (urban planning guide), examining how it was applied to certain public spaces in the city, and how people in the field are trained through the City of Montreal. She also provided a good look at the Montreal-based organisation, Women In Cities.

Links: 

City of Liège, Belgium