 |
| Recherche
et publications: La Convention de Tampere (en anglais) |
| |
| The
Tampere Convention on the provision of telecommunication resources
for disaster mitigation and relief operations |
Fast and effective communication
for relief workers in times of a disaster is critical to
saving lives. Yet legal barriers to the use of telecommunications
equipment are frequent because of the highly regulated nature
of telecommunications in the information age.
The Tampere Convention on the Provision
of Telecommunication Resources for Disaster Mitigation and
Relief Operations of 1998 is a treaty aimed at reducing
regulatory barriers. It establishes an international framework
for states to cooperate among themselves as well as with
non-state entities and intergovernmental organizations to
ensure the smooth and effective use of telecommunications
in disaster settings. The Convention entered into force
in January 2005 and currently has 35 state parties.
|
|
More information:
* Note: Inasmuch as the
Tampere Convention has not yet been applied in practice, the
information on these pages is based solely on an interpretation
of the text of the treaty itself. |
|
| Summary |
The Tampere Convention is a treaty
aimed at facilitating the use of telecommunication resources
and assistance for disaster mitigation and relief. It establishes
an international framework for states to cooperate among
themselves and with non-state entities and intergovernmental
organizations.
Among other things, the convention
seeks to simplify and strengthen the procedures by which
international disaster responders may bring telecommunications
equipment across borders during and after an emergency and
use them in their operations. It requires state parties
to reduce or remove regulatory barriers and to confer the
necessary privileges, immunities, and facilities for international
relief providers. However, the convention also recognizes
the sovereign interests of state parties, providing substantial
flexibility as to how to carry out their obligations and
ensuring that they maintain primary authority in relief
coordination in their own borders.
|
|
| Background |
Why a Convention | Historical development
Why a
Convention?
The Tampere Convention was born
out of the consistent technical barriers encountered by
international disaster responders in importing and using
telecommunications equipment in disaster situations.
As noted by United Nations Secretary-General
Kofi Annan in a message issued on the occasion of the Intergovernmental
Conference on Emergency Telecommunications (ICET 98, Tampere,
16-18 June 1998) where the Tampere Convention was adopted:
“An appropriate
response depends upon the timely availability of accurate
data from the often remote and inaccessible sites of crises.
From the mobilization of assistance to the logistics chain,
which will carry assistance to the intended beneficiaries,
reliable telecommunications links are indispensable. Today's
telecommunication industry provides us with a multitude
of equipment and services, but national regulatory barriers
still hinder the full use of these valuable tools.”
These regulatory barriers come in
various forms, as pointed out by Jean Ayoob, Director of
Disaster Management and Coordination for the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC):
“There are
states that do not allow the import and use of radio equipment;
some states insist on the use of certain type of fixed frequency
radios, which make it technically difficult to operate in
changing situations, and, finally, some states charge .
. . expensive fees for licences that . . . are not proportional
to the actual work of the telecommunication administration.”
(CDC 2001, 28-30 May, 2001)
The Tampere Convention was thus
presented as a means, in the words of Pekka Tarjane, Secretary-General
of the International Telecommunications Union, “to
help us use all the tools at our disposal to lessen the
misery and loss of life . . . catastrophes leave behind”
(ICET 98, Tampere, 16-18 June 1998).
Historical
development
In 1991, an international Conference
on Disaster Communications convened in Tampere, Finland
adopted the Tampere
Declaration on Disaster Communications, which stressed
the need to create an international legal instrument on
telecommunications in disaster mitigation and relief.
Moreover, the Declaration invited the
United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator to cooperate
with the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) and other relevant organizations,
within the framework of the International
Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), to
convene an intergovernmental conference for the adoption
of a convention on disaster communications. The Tampere
Declaration was annexed to the unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 7 (Disaster Communications) of the first
World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-94,
Buenos Aires, 1994), which was in turn endorsed by
Resolution No. 36 (Disaster Communications) of the ITU
Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-94, Kyoto, 1994).
In 1994, the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC), a policy making body of
the UN and other humanitarian actors), established the
Working
Group on Emergency Telecommunications (WGET) was established.
The WGET includes United Nations entities as well as major
international and national, governmental and non-governmental
organizations, and experts from the academia and the private
sector. The WGET was very active in the initial discussions
and promotion of the Tampere Convention.
In 1997, the World Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC-97, Geneva) unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 644, urging all states to give their full support
to the adoption of a convention in this area and its national
implementation. Likewise in 1998, the second World Telecommunication
Development Conference (WTDC-98, Valletta) adopted Resolution
No. 19 endorsing the need for a convention.
In 1998, 60 states attending the
Intergovernmental
Conference on Emergency Telecommunications (ICET 98, Tampere,
Finland, 16-18 June 1998) unanimously adopted the
Tampere Convention. The Convention entered into force
on 8 January 2005 and, as of January 2007, it had 35 State
parties.
In 2001
and 2006,
the Government of Finland convened follow-up conferences
to promote the ratification and implementation of the
Convention.
|
|
| Core
provisions |
|
Reducing regulatory
barriers
State Parties agree
to “reduce or remove regulatory barriers to the use
of telecommunication resources for disaster mitigation and
relief” including, but not limited to: import or export
restrictions, restrictions on the movement of essential
personnel, restrictions on use of particular types of equipment
or radio-frequency spectrums, and licensing requirements
and fees. They further agree to reduce regulatory barriers
for transit through their territory of personnel, equipment,
materials and information for relief operations in other
States. (Article 9)
Ensuring necessary privileges,
immunities and facilities:
State Parties agree,
to the extent permitted by national law, to grant relief
personnel and organizations providing telecommunications
assistance with their express approval the necessary privileges,
immunities and facilities for the performance of their
functions. These include immunity from arrest, detention
and legal process; immunity from seizure, attachment or
requisition in relation to their equipment, materials
and property; exemption from taxes, duties and other charges,
excluding value-added tax (VAT); provision of local facilities;
exemption or facilitation of license procedures; and protection
of personnel, equipment and materials. (Article 5)
Respect for state sovereignty:
Recipient States
retain full control over the initiation and termination
of telecommunications assistance, with the power to reject
all or part of any offer of assistance (Articles 4(5)
and 6(1)). Recipient States also retain the right to direct,
control, coordinate and supervise telecommunication assistance
provided under the Convention within their territory (Article
4 (8)). The Convention also establishes that all organizations
providing telecommunication assistance or otherwise facilitating
the use of telecommunication resources have the duty to
respect the laws and regulations of that State Party and
not to interfere in the domestic affairs of the Requesting
State (Article 5 (7).
Improving coordination
and information sharing:
Assignment of the operational
coordinator: The United Nations Emergency Relief
Coordinator (supported by the Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)) is appointed the “operational
coordinator” for the Convention with a number
of tasks aimed at improving coordination and information
sharing with regard to telecommunications assistance.
(Article 2)
Managing requests and
offers: Requests for telecommunications assistance
may be made directly or through the intermediary of
the Operational Coordinator. They are to be as specific
as possible. Other State Parties are to respond quickly
as to the assistance it is able to provide and its terms.
(Article 4)
Sharing information
on hazards: State Parties agree to share information
about hazards and disasters among themselves, non-State
entities and intergovernmental organizations and the
public, particularly at-risk communities. (Article 3)
Establishment of a telecommunication
assistance information inventory: States are
to keep the operational coordinator informed as to which
national authorities are responsible for matters arising
under the Tampere Convention and competent to identify
telecommunication resources which could be made available
for disaster mitigation and relief. The operational
coordinator is asked to maintain lists of these authorities
add disseminate them to States, non-State entities and
intergovernmental organizations. (Article 8)
|
|
| Benefits
of the Convention* |
The Tampere Convention creates a
more orderly system for requesting, accepting and terminating
international assistance and encourages improved systems
for cooperation among States.
In addition to lowering administrative
barriers to international telecommunications relief, the
Convention clarifies important operational questions on
privileges and immunities, costs and liability.
The Convention is of particular
significance to humanitarian actors, inasmuch as:
-
Non-state actors
may benefit from the lowering of administrative barriers
as well as States.
-
The Convention
extends privileges and immunities beyond States and
international organizations to non-State actors providing
telecommunications assistance.
-
The Convention
recognizes the unique identity of the Red Cross/Red
Crescent within the humanitarian community (Article
1(11)).
|
|
| Next
steps |
Ratification and accession | National
implementation | Model
agreements |
Telecommunication assistance information
inventory | Role of the Red Cross/Red
Crescent |
Beyond Tampere | Signature
and ratification information
Ratification
and accession
Any member State of the United
Nations or the International
Telecommunications Union may become party to the Tampere
Convention (art. 12).
As asserted by Emergency
Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland in his opening address
at ICEC
2006, “the ratification and implementation of
the provisions of the Tampere Convention by a large number
of Member States will greatly facilitate the work of OCHA
and the other humanitarian partners in disaster relief operations.”
Thus, States that have signed the
Tampere Convention should be encouraged to ratify it and
those that have not signed should consider acceding to the
Convention as soon as possible. This recommendation has
been echoed in a number of instruments since the adoption
of the Tampere Convention, including: Resolution 36 adopted
during the Plenipotentiary
Conference of the ITU (Minneapolis, 1998); resolutions
54/203 (1999), 55/163 (2000) 55/175 (2000), 56/103 (2001),
56/217 (2001), 57/152 (2002), 57/155 (2002), 58/25 (2003),
58/122 (2003), 59/211 (2004), 59/212 (2004) and 60/123 (2005)
of the UN
General Assembly; the Opinion on the Second Tampere
Conference on Disaster Communications (CDC
2001, Tampere, Finland, 28-30 May 2001); Final Goal
3.2.5 of the 28th
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
and the statement of ICEC
2006.
For information on how to sign and
ratify the Convention refer to ITU’s
How to sign and ratify this Convention and to the procedural
information provided by the Under-Secretary-General for
Legal Affairs to Permanent Representatives in New York.
National
implementation
In order to implement the Tampere
Convention, States should review and update their national
legislation, in order to address the regulatory barriers
it covers and to allow for conferring privileges, immunities
and facilities for the entry and use of telecommunications
equipment (Articles 5 and 9).
Model
agreements
The Convention foresees the adoption
of bilateral agreements between the provider(s) of assistance
and the State requesting such assistance (Article 3 (3)).
It also calls on the Operational Coordinator, in consultation
with the humanitarian community and States Parties, to develop
model agreements, best practices and other information to
smooth the entry and use of telecommunications in disaster
settings (Article 3 (4)).
Telecommunication
assistance information inventory
Notify the operational coordinator
of the States authorities responsible for matters arising
under the Convention and provide the operational coordinator
with other necessary information in connection with the
Telecommunication Assistance Information Inventory (Article
8 (1)).
Role of
the Red Cross/Red Crescent
The Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement has committed to promoting
the implementation of the Tampere Convention. This includes
encouraging their respective governments to become parties
(Council of Delegates Res. 5 of 2001) and providing technical
advice to them and to the Operational Coordinator on telecommunications
assistance issues. As noted in the concluding statement
of International
Conference on Emergency Communications 2006, “national
Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies can be a resource for policy
makers at the domestic level in considering issues raised
by the Tampere Convention.” That same statement recommended
that “the International Telecommunication Union and
the IFRC IDRL programme should provide active support to
the Operational Coordinator in the implementation of the
Coordinator’s mandate under the Tampere Convention”.
Beyond
Tampere
The Tampere Convention is an important
starting point and model for addressing the similar types
of regulatory problems that occur in all sectors of disaster
relief. As pointed out in a speech by Johan Schaar, Special
Representative of the IFRC Secretary-General for the Tsunami
Operation at the International Conference on Emergency Communications
in 2006:
“The entry and use of telecommunications
equipment is one but only one of the[] problem areas.
International aid providers experience obstacles for example
with customs, visas and registration with regard to other
types of equipment, particularly vehicles, but also with
relief goods such as food, medicines, and housing material.
Weak coordination is an ongoing
problem that cuts across all sectors of relief.
Crucial as they are, radios, telephones
and satellite systems cannot feed, house, clothe or protect
people by themselves. It does little good to rush through
the visas and customs clearance for telecommunications
delegates and equipment, if the rest of a relief operation
is still stuck at the border or cannot fully operate once
in the country.
For us, the Tampere Convention
has great significance in itself. But as a model for further
structure to a still largely unregulated sector, we think
that it will be even further important as a step toward
the creation of an international consensus on legal preparedness
that comprehensively addresses these problems.”
Signature
and ratification information
| States
parties to the Tampere Convention |
| Barbados |
Hungary |
Nicaragua |
Sweden |
| Bulgaria |
India |
Oman |
Switzerland |
| Canada |
Kenya |
Panama |
Tonga |
| Cyprus |
Kuwait |
Peru |
Uganda |
| Czech
Republic |
Lebanon |
Romania |
United
Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland |
| Denmark |
Liberia |
Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Dominica |
Liechtenstein |
Venezuela |
| El Salvador |
Lithuania |
Slovakia |
|
| Finland |
Morocco |
Spain |
| Guinea |
Netherlands |
Sri Lanka |
| States
that have signed but not yet ratified the Tampere Convention |
| Argentina |
Germany |
Mauritania |
Tajikistan |
| Benin |
Ghana |
Mongolia |
The
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia |
| Brasil |
Haiti |
Nepal |
| Burundi |
Honduras |
Niger |
United
States |
| Chad |
Iceland |
Poland |
Uruguay |
| Chile
|
Italy |
Portugal |
Uzbekistan |
| Congo
|
Madagascar |
Russian
Federation |
|
| Costa
Rica |
Mali |
Saint
Lucia |
| Estonia |
Malta |
Senegal |
| Gabon
|
Marshall
Islands |
Sudan |
Source: ReliefWeb, 16 January 2007.
For an update of the list of signatories and ratifications
please refer to http://www.reliefweb.int/telecoms/tampere/signatories.html.
|
|
| Useful
links |
| |
|
|
|
Gestion de catastrophes
(76 Kb, 4 pages)
