 |
| Investigación
y publicaciones: el Convenio de Tampere (en inglés) |
| |
| 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 |
| |
|
|
|
Desastres
(76 Kb, 4 pages)
