Abstract
This article presents a study on urban security management in the capitals of the former Yugoslav republics (FYR): Ljubljana (Slovenia), Zagreb (Croatia), Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Belgrade (Serbia) and Skopje (FYR Macedonia). The article presents crime, natural disasters and other security threats in the region using semi-structured interviews with municipal security experts and officials as well as university researchers who deal with or manage security issues in the respective cities. The main findings show that collaboration between the various state and local organizations is necessary for the provision of safety and security in urban settings. Competencies, knowledge, skills and integrity are required for urban security managers and all partners in safety and security provision practice.
Introduction
The changing global security environment and new security challenges influenced the development of security systems at individual, national and international levels. One can say that the concept of security was redefined (Tominc and Sotlar, 2011). The concept of human security (Djurić, 2009) puts the individual and his/her needs and expectations at the centre of security provision provided by state and/or local security providers. This also influenced local administrations, which were faced with higher expectations by citizens in terms of a better quality of life, in which security and safety are irreplaceable goods. If after 9/11 the world’s capitals dealt mostly with terrorist threats, and the security and safety policies of cities were focused mostly on terrorist and crime issues, Hurricane Katrina (2005) and other disasters remind us that cities are also vulnerable to natural disasters. The Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 also addresses three major threats to the safety and security of cities: urban crime and violence; insecurity of tenure and forced evictions; and natural and human-made disasters (United Nations, 2007). Since ‘security’ has become a new, broader notion to individuals, the question is who can manage the complex security environment in the urban areas in which a plurality of different state, local and private security/police/control agencies are operating? The gradual ‘pluralization’ of policing provision has been noted in many countries during the last 20 years (Stenning, 2009). From the viewpoint of a citizen, the security sector is a single entity; it must be effective and efficient, as well as economically acceptable. One of the challenges in the quest to make cities safer and to guarantee the well-being of citizens is to improve cooperation between administrative bodies, security services and the agencies and organizations that contribute to the functioning of urban communities. Security provision in local communities is only one aspect of these efforts, which require cooperation and partnership between state and local authorities and organizations (state police, local police, consultative bodies, wardens, civil protection and disaster relief) as well as the involvement of civil society – citizens, civil initiatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 1 Meško and Lobnikar (2005) point out that although local security provision requires the participation of a variety of partners it is still the primary responsibility of national (state) institutions at a local level. The solution could be found in the integration of representatives of institutions and communities in bodies that would determine the priorities in addressing security issues, as well as taking responsibility for such prioritization (Greene, 2011).
The main goal of the article is to portray the state of urban security and the challenges to its management in the capitals of the former Yugoslav republics (FYR). We first present the primary characteristics of the urbanization processes of states and their capitals, and follow this with an overview of the most important reported crimes. One should note that crime statistics in some states and capitals are not reliable, not readily available or non-existent. We then assess the threats that result from natural disasters, using various national and international reports and documents. The real value of our study, however, is that we present the opinions and assessments of academics and practitioners on urban security in the capitals of the former Yugoslav republics. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted, using sets of questions based on a questionnaire prepared by Gordon Hughes, a lead academic partner of the URBIS project 2 from Cardiff University, UK, and modified by a research team from the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Slovenia. The interviews were conducted in July and August 2012. The findings give us an opportunity to understand the current security and safety 2 situation in the capitals being studied 3 and the prospects for urban security management in the future, with respect to the development of the urban security manager as an evolving professional profile, especially by the European Forum for Urban Security (EFUS, 2012; Meško, 2007).
Crime and (in)security in the capitals of former Yugoslav republics
The aim of this section is to analyse crime and natural disasters, two aspects of security issues that have important implications for a large segment of the population in the local community and for state and municipal authorities in the process of creating and implementing local prevention policies. As former Yugoslav republics, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and FYR Macedonia (FYROM) share a common history, although this region is characterized by its highly diverse geography, demography, ethnic groups, religions, culture and economies. These societies went through a major political and economic upheaval, which involved a series of conflicts and instability after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the collapse of the socialist political systems in 1991. Despite many problems, risks and challenges, remarkable progress has been made since the late 1990s. Table 1 gives details of the main characteristics of the countries under discussion and helps us to understand the scope and context of security issues in their societies.
The main characteristics of the former Yugoslav republics and their capitals.
Sources: SURS (2010); Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2011); City of Sarajevo (2012); Institute of Informatics and Statistics (2011); IMF (2012); CIA (2012); UNODC (2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d, 2008e).
Crime statistics are often better indicators of the prevalence of law enforcement and the willingness to report crime than of actual prevalence.
One should bear in mind the characteristics of the countries and the capital cities when discussing the security threats to the urban population. For instance, Slovenia, which is smallest in terms of territory (of the state and the capital) and population (of the state and the capital) and has the lowest unemployment rate, and at the same time has the highest gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (see Table 1), reports the highest number of criminal offences per 100,000 inhabitants among the studied capitals (see Table 1). 4 Meško et al. (2010) state that crime and other security problems are concentrated in the urban environment of the capital, which has the highest crime and disorder rates and the lowest clear-up rates in the country. The crime rate has tripled since 1996 in Slovenia (Meško and Jere, 2012). Despite the highest number of reported crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in the region, the feeling of safety among Slovenian inhabitants is high. The latest research on security/safety provision has confirmed that 70 percent of respondents feel safe (Meško et al., 2012a). There were 88,722 recorded criminal offences in 2011 in Slovenia, of which Ljubljana accounted for 34,141; thus the Ljubljana Police Directorate alone deals with over 50 percent of the country’s crimes (Ljubljana Police Directorate, 2011a). 5
Kovčo Vukadin (2011) analysed crime trends and structure in Croatia between two sets of reforms in criminal legislation (1997 and 2011). In comparison with other countries in the European area, crime rates for ‘basic’ index offences, such as homicide, rape and robbery, show that Croatia is a relatively safe country (according to the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, 2006, 2010). In terms of trends in adult crime, an increase in reports, charges and convictions was observed (except during the final third of the period analysed). The number of criminal offences per 100,000 population in Croatia between 2003 and 2007 increased by 2.0 percent from 2,455 to 2,505 (Aebi et al., 2010); the 36,291 reported crimes in Zagreb represent more than 30 percent of reported crimes in Croatia.
The breakdown of social, economic and political structures as a consequence of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina led to the expansion of different forms of crime. The overall crime rate in the country remains high, with the greatest concentration of incidents in Sarajevo (1,892 per 100,000 inhabitants) and other urban areas. Crime statistics for 2009 indicate that there were 8,015 criminal offences reported in Sarajevo, which is 9.2 percent less than in 2008 (Meško et al., 2012b).
There is no comprehensive research on crime trends in Serbia and the available crime statistics cannot give a proper picture of the situation. Problems related to drug abuse and trafficking represent the primary cause for feeling unsafe among the majority of citizens, both at the national and the local level; corruption is also one of the three problems that burden Serbia according to public opinion research (Kešetović, forthcoming). However, statistics from the Ministry of Interior (Ministarstvo Unutrašnjih Poslova, MUP) show that general criminal offences in Belgrade decreased, which is an important fact if we bear in mind that crime in Belgrade accounted for one-third of total crime in the Republic of Serbia. Property crime is still the most common form of crime. The number of robberies increased and the number of homicides dropped (MUP Republike Srbije, 2012). Organized crime and its associated violence and corruption remain the main concern. Serbian security forces’ recent successes in combating drug trafficking have increased violence directed at competing factions and internal suspicions within criminal organizations (OSAC, 2011).
During the 20-year period 1991–2011, sentenced crime in the Republic of Macedonia increased more than one-third (Mirceva and Rajkovcevski, forthcoming). Over half of criminal offences registered in FYROM in the first half of 2009 took place in Skopje municipal area. The crime rate in Skopje was 2,300 per 100,000 inhabitants (Meško et al., 2012b).
Meško et al. (2012b) conducted a comparative analysis of fear of crime in the respective capitals. The analysis shows that one’s fear of crime intensity is influenced by weak social networks in a neighbourhood, worry about crime, the probability of victimization in the next 12 months, the severity of the consequences of victimization, low self-defence capability, the impact of victimization on one’s life, preventative measures (precaution), gender (women), higher education, a low position in the labour market, and recent victimization. The results for the capital cities differ. In Ljubljana, the influences on fear of crime are disorder in the neighbourhood, worry about crime, the consequences of victimization, low self-defence capability, the impact of victimization on one’s life and precaution. None of the demographic variables was found to be significant. In Zagreb, fear of crime is predicted by weak social networks in a neighbourhood, low self-defence capability, the impact of victimization on one’s life, precaution, gender (women), position in the labour market and one’s financial situation. In Sarajevo, the influences are worry about crime, low self-defence capability, the impact of victimization on one’s life and precaution. In Belgrade, the consequences of victimization, low self-defence capability, the impact of victimization on one’s life, precaution, education and low financial status of households are related to fear of crime. In Skopje, the factors are worry about crime, low self-defence capability, precaution, gender (women), education and weak position in the labour market. Trust in public institutions (government, police, criminal justice, the military, political parties, the church) and age were not found to have an impact on fear of crime in any of the capital cities studied.
The number of criminal offences is an important factor but it cannot tell the whole story of how people feel about security and safety. Moreover, it is very likely that natural and human-made disasters create more problems than criminal offences for ordinary citizens every year. On the other hand, natural disasters are usually not limited to one region, city or the capital city. It is very likely that when they strike they affect a broader territory and a larger number of people. Therefore, from the viewpoint of citizens, a rapid and coordinated response by the authorities and the agencies responsible for the protection and security of people and their goods might be even more important than the fight against crime. 6
Owing to the geographical characteristics of Slovenia, natural disasters, especially floods, summer storms, fires and earthquakes, are common phenomena. The danger of environmental disasters is increasing as a result of urbanization and industrialization. The cost to Slovenia every year of summer storms, serious floods, sleet, landslides and other natural disasters amounts, on average, to more than 2.0 percent of GDP (URSZR, 2012).
Croatia is not immune to climate change and, although not being a typical natural disaster hotspot, it is regularly exposed to hazardous events such as droughts, forest fires, frost, hail, floods and severe snowfall (UNDP, 2012). Drought causes the greatest damage (65 percent), followed by hail, frost, rain, floods and wind storms (DUZS, 2009). Damage caused by drought, frost and hail is estimated at €3.5 billion for the period 1980–2002, which is equivalent to €152 million per year (SEE RDRMP, 2011).
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the natural disasters that affect property and endanger human lives are earthquakes, stormy weather with hail, severe winds with electrical discharge, snow storms, short intense rainfall that causes raging floods, landslides, droughts, early and late frosts, and industrial and forest fires (Tamási and Grósz, 2010). The number of people affected was extremely high – 403,208.
The major natural disasters to which the Republic of Serbia is exposed are: earthquakes, floods, torrential floods, storms, heavy rain, atmospheric discharge, hail, drought, landslide or landslip, snow deposits and avalanche, extreme air temperatures, ice accumulation on water flows, epidemic livestock diseases and the emergence of pests and other large-scale natural phenomena that may endanger the health and lives of people or cause extensive damage (SEE RDRMP and UNDP Serbia, 2011).
Macedonia is highly susceptible to flooding, drought, extreme temperatures, forest fires and earthquakes. Seismicity is high and, according to a recent World Bank study, between 1990 and 2008 only three countries in Europe experienced more climate-related natural disasters (SEE RDRMP and UNDP Macedonia, 2011).
In addition to official (rather incomplete) statistics and in order to gain a clearer picture of the main challenges to urban security in the capital cities of the former Yugoslav republics, we conducted interviews with urban security experts and officials who deal with or manage security issues as well as with university researchers who are studying security issues in the respective cities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in July and August 2012. The interviewees stated that high-priority problems of community safety in the capitals of the former Yugoslav countries are drug trafficking, property crime (theft, burglary and robbery), corporate crime, including corruption, and corruption in public administration. Those issues are followed by interpersonal violence, tax evasion, social exclusion and youth unemployment, protection of critical infrastructure (water and food security, transport and communications systems, energy grids), incivility, anti-social behaviour and environmental degradation (illegal waste disposal, pollution). The interviewees were also asked to name the least important problems in their capitals. As expected, terrorism was not recognized as a serious threat to security despite terrorist attacks in some other European capitals (Moscow, Madrid and London, for example) in the previous 10 years. Also, state police violence, immigration and low social cohesion, mass demonstrations and civil unrest associated with austerity measures are not recognized as problems emphasized by our interviewees.
Security strategies and challenges for managing community safety
Experts and researchers have indicated the following top five approaches to community safety management: preventing the onset of offending behaviour and incivility, enforcing the criminal law, enhancing democratic scrutiny and oversight of security strategies, and reducing social inequalities in household income and in access to education, employment, healthcare and housing. They all share the opinion that increased use of imprisonment and building additional correctional facilities, as well as punitive sentencing policies, are not sound approaches to community safety and combating crime. Reducing social segregation and promoting social cohesion can work. In their opinion, less effective approaches are reassurances to citizens about their security and reduction of fear of crime, and restorative justice interventions with perpetrators and victims of criminal offences. In addition, they do not consider self-protection to be an appropriate approach. They are of the opinion that reducing the opportunities for criminal victimization and requests to citizens to take responsibility for their own security and equipping them with the capacity and resources to meet this responsibility are not good solutions either.
Regarding current challenges for managing community safety in local security, our interviewees mostly agreed that security strategies ought to be driven by research expertise on the causes of security problems and by evaluations of what does and does not work and of what is promising in the prevention of security problems. The latter is even more professed by practitioners than by academics.
Despite the efforts of the European Union (EU) and the existing European Urban Charter (1992), which provides for coordinated cooperation between possible actors in the local community, there is strong disagreement that security strategies in the chosen capitals must be coordinated by the EU. This ought to be devolved to local authorities, and the national government should provide greater financial support. The entities of formal social control at the state level, informal networks (victims support associations, sports associations, NGOs, etc.) and state and local decision-making bodies should aim jointly to develop their local community and make it secure. The EU and other international entities should be more involved in strategies against organized crime and drug trafficking. Community safety problems such as terrorism and organized crime should be the responsibility of state actors (e.g. the police) whether at the national, regional or local ‘tier’.
Global financial, economic and social risks and austerity programmes have also affected local security management, but since citizens express very high trust in informal networks (e.g. NGOs, rescue associations and voluntary fire-fighters), our respondents are positive that this situation is going to lead to the greater involvement of commercial enterprises and NGOs in public safety where necessary. Voluntary fire-fighters, in particular, are highly trusted in Slovenia as a consequence of historical tradition and the nature of the security issues in local communities (Meško et al., 2012a). There is a strong belief that austerity programmes will not cause a rapid growth in private security in wealthy neighbourhoods. However, practitioners in Ljubljana and Belgrade were concerned that the global financial crisis will boost the growth of mass civil unrest and protest. 7 A police chief in Ljubljana expressed a concern that cutbacks in strict security measures might be counterproductive in the future. The fear of terrorist acts in capital cities is obviously not present in this part of Europe.
Potential challenges to managing community safety lie in factors of uncertainty, poverty and unemployment (Sotlar and Tominc, 2012). Problems of unemployment will be concentrated in young cohorts of the urban population, and this might lead to greater criminal predation among the young and against the elderly. Interviewees strongly disagreed with the statement that financial crises and the ageing of the population in cities would alter the demography of crime such that offending behaviour would become more common among the older population. Here, the only exception was a Belgrade practitioner who agreed with this statement. The Serbian interviewee substantiated his opinion with the cases of people who used to be part of high society 20 years ago but now could be found searching through rubbish bins or cultivating cannabis. The interviewees were positive that, in the context of a decline in governing capacity and of limited economic growth in the formal economy, the illicit economy (drugs, vice and gambling, for example) would expand and would become more organized and more harmful in terms of its consequences. They also strongly believed that public administration in cities would face increasing problems of corruption and tax evasion. It is interesting that, despite all the ethnic conflicts in the western Balkans in the past, none of the interviewees was concerned by increasing ethnic and cultural diversity, which could result in worsening problems of social segregation and integration.
Responsibility for managing community safety
Despite high levels of trust in NGOs, our interviewees were of the opinion that non-state actors such as local businesses and commercial enterprises, as well as local charities and volunteer groups, do not have responsibility for carrying out key community security tasks at the ‘street’ level and they do not determine the community safety agenda. Civil groups and the business sector are also not expected to be involved in creating security strategies. State actors still have primary strategic and operational responsibility and directly influence the carrying out of community safety measures. The police are expected to deal with community security problems; they hold primary responsibility and are appropriately equipped and trained to deal with it. The local administration has the responsibility for providing security, but their powers are limited by law, even if they seek greater powers. Even if some tasks are deployed from state to local actors, the financing of such activities is not.
A challenge for the future is that strategic responsibility would lie with elected mayors or other elected officials in order to ensure implementation of the priorities in solving urban problems that reflect the concerns of local people. Responsibility should lie with appointed civil servants, who operate beyond specific electoral terms and therefore develop long-term strategies that are less influenced by political pressures. Power should not be totally shifted away from the public police and criminal justice to local stakeholders. There is a need to build stronger partnerships between all actors at all levels. There was also a high level of agreement with the statement that scientific expertise on community safety problems is marginal to the present leadership, whether at the national or the municipal level, whether elected or appointed civil servants. All respondents stressed the importance of the integrity of all the partners involved in the provision of safety and security in their cities.
Education, training and skills for urban security management
Managing security, especially in urban areas, is a job for professionals. Professionalization of security managers is justified when it makes it easier for them to raise funds for security provision, realize their mission and contribute to a safer community. The risk of professionalism lies in the possibility of the isolation of the profession from other professionals and communities. Therefore urban security managers, as coordinators, have to have the skills and knowledge to analyse situations and to plan, which enables them to cooperate successfully with state and local authorities and security provision institutions and organizations, as well with the general public/society. Cooperation and communication are fundamental activities that are necessary for the work of urban security managers (Meško, 2007).
We were interested in who we were talking with, what kind of knowledge these practitioners and academic researchers had, and especially what their opinions were concerning an evolving professional profile – the urban security manager. The interviewees did not hold degrees based on community safety (some of them had a police background, and some held a university degree); they had undergone some specialized educational and training programmes offered by national and international institutions (university, United Nations Police Task Force, local authority). Most of them had acquired knowledge and became familiar with community safety through their practice and partly while studying at university. This might be why they believed that there is a need for education and training focused on community safety. Now the various professional groups that deal with security have their own distinct and separate systems of training, and those programmes are problem oriented and are limited to a particular problem (youth crime, violence, etc.). Traditional law enforcement and reactive policing strategies are still dominant as regards the expertise of the community safety manager in local communities and are based on compulsory, centralized, state-run training programmes and systems of education/certification.
The interviewees believed that the expertise of the urban security/safety manager should be based primarily on master’s programmes in criminology, crisis management qualifications and training, interdisciplinary approaches to problem-solving, evidence-based problem-solving skills, and analytical expertise. The urban security/safety manager should be able to communicate with members of the academic community as well as with those who have a political responsibility for community safety. That should accentuate the real character of the concept of community safety and should strengthen it with the scientific basis needed for appropriate policies and actions in this sphere. The interviewees also believed that university programmes should reflect practice and orient curriculums to the needs of practice and not just to their academic purposes (applied social sciences).
Conclusion
In contrast to the statistics of European countries, where more than two-thirds of the population of Europe now live in urban areas (Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, 2012), in former Yugoslav countries this rate is markedly lower (Sarajevo 49 percent, Ljubljana 50 percent). Crime and instability in the region and consequently in urban settlements have emerged from a variety of factors. Since the armed conflicts in the 1990s, the economic decline is the greatest challenge in providing security nowadays. Factors of uncertainty such as poverty and unemployment as a consequence of the economic crisis in Europe face state and local authorities with new challenges and tasks. Among the most challenging issues are natural disasters. Crime, especially organized crime, also spread during the conflict, mostly because of weak state administration infrastructures and weak economies.
Crime prevention in these countries is usually the task and responsibility of the state police. Other organizations are of a more restorative nature in the case of social crisis or environmental disasters. Despite the rapid development of the studied societies and their capitals, the profile of the urban security manager as an evolving professional profile is quite a challenging project. According to the practitioners and academic researchers who took part in the interviews, the urban security manager should be competent not only in crime prevention but also in safety/security management, in legal matters, and in the principles of state and local government, as well as in the development of security policies in communication with various institutions, groups of people and individuals. Today these functions are spread among different positions (and professions), but the contemporary security environment requires a professional in the community who can meet all these challenges. It is important that the profession of urban manager is well accepted by the local and state authorities that provide financial and logistical support, by other local security/safety actors and, even more importantly, by the citizens. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, a specialized national or international university programme dedicated to the urban security manager is a necessity. Promising projects in this field, in addition to existing university programmes in criminology, criminal justice and security, are the European projects EEMUS 8 and URBIS.