Assembly of European Regions

Connecting regions, inspiring Europe since 1985

You are here: Home / Archives for Decentralisation

This is the tag for all posts relating to decentralisation.

A youth voluntary response to COVID-19!

By

On the 14th of May, AER participated in the webinar Euro-Mediterranean Youth Voluntary responses to the COVID-19 hosted by the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). AER programmes coordinator, Andrés Muñoz, joined a discussion panel on the role of regions and municipalities mobilising young volunteers to contain the spread of the virus. Two examples from AER member regions were featured in the discussions: Lepoglava municipality in Varazdin County (HR) and Ajara region (GE).

Regions mobilising youth voluntary work!

Regional and local authorities are at the frontline of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic engaging with communities to avoid the spread, delivering healthcare and other essential services and supporting the most vulnerable population, including young people. But youth has also proven to be a highly effective partner to respond to such sanitary emergencies and a valuable asset to the frontline actors for vital livelihood support.

Regional and local authorities rely on the contribution of the organised civil society and community groups, including young volunteers, together with international or private organisations to respond to the challenges of the pandemic. Many young activists and volunteers across the globe have embarked on exemplary initiatives and are generating innovative ideas to save countless lives within their communities and help in the longer-term recovery process.

AER examples of youth voluntary work

Lepoglava, Varazdin County (HR): 

The region allocated resources and organized lots of young volunteers for food and medicines delivery, prioritising the most vulnerable segments of the population. Starting from helping the elderly people in bringing them groceries, medicine and other essential goods to include people in self-isolation into such a solidarity campaign. Special attention was paid to very poor communities who were delivered free warm lunch every second day.

The organised youth took also an active part in “patrolling” the streets to inform the local stores, retailers and businesses about the distancing rules, disinfection and hygiene measures to prevent the spread of the virus. Besides that, during the “patrolling” the young volunteers distributed free masks and gloves to those citizens in need of prevention equipment.

Regional Youth Centre of Ajara (GE)

With the pandemic outbreak, activities of the Regional Youth Center of Ajara region (GE) shifted from planning and executing youth projects to coordinating young volunteers in the crisis management strategies to respond to the COVID-19.

The youth centre launched a call to recruit volunteers and, in cooperation with the Georgian Red Cross Society, trained over 400 volunteers who delivered food and medicines to over 10.000 families. As a result, the Ajara’s Youth Regional Centre has successfully acquired new skills in the field of crisis management. This solidarity youth response reaffirms the commitment of the Ajara region towards young people’s inclusion in public life.

The Eurodyssey example:

Eurodyssey’s joint actions to contain the COVID-19 crisis were also featured in the discussions as an example of interregional response to protect young people in mobility.

Share your success story!

AER is mapping further youth voluntary initiatives from member regions to give visibility to the role being played by young activists in addressing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The main goal is to showcase more success stories and, ultimately, organise an online workshop to exchange lessons learnt and best practices in this area.

Please, just answer a brief survey to share your story and upload any relevant pictures or files for social media purposes:

FILL IN SURVEY



Thanks in advance for contributing to this initiative!

Photo credits: @Lepoglava municipality / @Ajara

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Spring Digest: Funding opportunities for EU and non-EU member regions

By

Looking for funding for your projects? Here are some opportunities you could be interested in!

The AER Project Unit has prepared a selection of calls for proposals on the following subjects: Cohesion Policy, energy, climate action, civil society, citizen’s rights, youth and social economy.

If you require any further information, are looking for partners, or planning to apply to these calls, don’t hesitate to contact the AER project unit.

*** Update ***

Due to the Covid-19 crisis, some deadlines for funding application have been postponed. The Horizon 2020 call titled Boost Rural Economies through Cross-Sector Digital Service Platforms, previously shared in this article have been updated. The submission deadline for this topic has been extended from 22 April to 17 June 2020.

Cohesion Policy

Support for citizen engagement in the implementation of cohesion policy (DG REGIO)
Deadline: 1 June 2020
Eligibility: EU Member States
DG Regio has launched an open call for proposals, which the main action is the implementation of innovative actions or tools to engage citizens in cohesion policy, co-financed by the EU. This call has been mentioned in this article previously.

Energy

Mitigating household energy poverty (Horizon 2020)
Deadline: 10 September 2020
Eligibility: EU and non-EU Member States (check the list of eligible countries here)
This call focuses on alleviating energy poverty and developing a better understanding of the types and needs of energy-poor households and how to identify them. The proposed action should help to facilitate behavioural change and financial or non-financial support schemes and to disseminate innovative schemes for energy efficiency.
Supporting public authorities in driving the energy transition (Horizon 2020)
Deadline: 10 September 2020
Eligibility: EU and non-EU Member States (check the list of eligible countries here)
The focus of the call is on decentralisation of energy governance, with the main goal of enhancing political commitment at a local level through a shift of responsibility in implementation and monitoring of energy efficiency solutions. The proposed action should be a support to local and regional public authorities and respectively support into transposing the Energy Efficiency Directive.

Climate Action & Environment

National roundtables to implement the Smart Finance for Smart Buildings initiative (Horizon 2020)
Deadline: 10 September 2020
Eligibility: EU and non-EU Member States (check the list of eligible countries here)
This call aims to facilitate the creation/set-up of national roundtables focused on energy efficiency investment. The roundtables should gather the relevant stakeholders in permanent multilateral discussion forums. The focus must stress the exciting private and public buildings, industry and SME’s. The roundtables should analyse the possibility to upscale existing best practices from the national and European level, develop strategies, roadmaps and action plans, propose improvements in the national policy frameworks and measures, and follow their implementation, develop jointly template documents and contracts leading to better functioning of the market.
LIFE Calls for proposals
You can find several calls for proposals from the program LIFE under the Environment and Climate action sub-programs. Those calls are detailed in this article previously published.

Civil Society

Civil Society Projects (Europe for Citizens)
Deadline: 1 September 2020
Eligibility: EU Member States, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo
The project should consist of stimulating and organising reflection, debates or other activities related to the multiannual priority themes of the Programme. The proposed actions should also propose practical solutions that can be found through cooperation or coordination at the European level. Projects should actively involve many citizens in the implementation and aim at setting the basis or develop long-lasting networking between many organisations active in the field.

Citizen’s Rights

Call for proposals to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities (Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme)
Deadline: 02 June 2020
Eligibility: EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Serbia
The first objective of this call is to promote the collection, exchange and dissemination of innovative effective practice for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. The proposed actions should also promote their active inclusion and participation in the society taking into account socio-economic trends such as the ageing of the population and digitalisation. The second objective is to fill in data gaps related to the situation of persons with disabilities.

Youth

European Youth Together 2020 (Erasmus +)
Deadline: 28 July 2020
Eligibility: EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey
This call aims to create networks promoting regional partnerships, to be run in close cooperation with young people from across Europe. The networks should organise exchanges, promote training and allow young people themselves to set up joint projects, all of which could be done through both physical and online activities. Projects should particularly address challenges related to inclusive participation for all young people, regardless of their background. This call was launched to give a needed immediate response to help mitigate the socio-economic impacts in the youth sector that emerged against the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Social Economy

Social Economy Mission (COSME)
Deadline: 9 June 2020
Eligibility: EU Member States and countries participating in the COSME programme
The call for proposals will support consortia in developing inter-regional learning and collaboration, and creating opportunities and incentives for future inter-regional partnerships in the field of priorities of “Social economy missions”. Project proposals must aim to enhance interaction and improving collaboration and boost inter-regional learning between a social economy network and stakeholders. It must also aim to contribute to the gradual building of a Social Economy community. You can find more information about this call in this article.

Photo by Sergey Shmidt on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Join AER’s New Taskforces!

By

Two new Taskforces are set for launch: Democracy, and Sustainable Mobility and Connectivity. Read below for more information on the work of these new taskforces, and find out if it might be of the interest of your region to join them!

AER Taskforce on Democracy

At the AER Bureau meeting, in Larnaca (CY), the Bureau members decided to establish the Taskforce on Democracy under the proposal of Örebro (SE).

The establishment of this Taskforce will advocate for ensuring one of AER’s Political Priorities 2020-2025: Promoting Democracy and good governance.

Human rights are at the very core of European values and AER believes that citizens’ interests must be at the centre of all decisions. They must be involved in clear ways in decision-making and must have access to all public information which will help them keep track and contribute to public authorities’ work. Decisions must be made according to the will of the many while the rights and interests of minorities and excluded groups must be respected. Government and public authorities must continuously seek new innovative solutions to foster greater involvement of citizens and more efficient governance, and decentralisation and subsidiarity must be promoted as a mean to achieve this. For instance, the work of this Taskforce should seek to find a way to greater involve regions in the development of the Conference on the Future of Europe and raising awareness among European citizens.

Should the work of this Taskforce be of any interest to your region, please fill in this form.

AER Taskforce on Sustainable Mobility and Connectivity

At the AER Bureau meeting, 5 December 2019 in Brussels (BE), the Bureau members decided to establish the Taskforce on Sustainable Mobility and Connectivity under the proposal of the Region of Sardinia (IT).

The establishment of this Taskforce will advocate for ensuring one of AER’s Political Priorities 2020-2025: Nurturing territorial cohesion and fostering cooperation all around Europe.

With reference to nurturing territorial cohesion, there is a need to stress the importance of transport connections in order to allow distant and marginal territories, such as islands, to stay linked to the rest of Europe, to allow mobility, synergies and economic development.

Should the work of this Taskforce be of any interest to your region, please fill in this form.

How to apply?

In order to join any of these task forces, or both of them, you just have to be a member of AER, doesn’t mind if you’re a Bureau member or not. Please, fill in the form below for each of it:

For further information, please do not hesitate to contact Gisela Guari, Institutional Relations & Advocacy Officer

Contact Us

Photo by Hudson Hintze on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Bureau signs off on Political Priorities 2020-2025

By

During the Autumn 2019 Bureau Meeting that took place on 5 December in Brussels (BE), Bureau members adopted AER Political Priorities for the upcoming 5 years (2020-2025).

AER Political Priorities 2020-2025 were drafted by the appointed Taskforce from the Spring 2019 Bureau Meeting and identified the challenges that AER should address over the next five years.

Among the priorities established in the position paper can be found:

  • Ensuring good governance.
  • Promoting decentralisation and subsidiarity.
  • Respecting and protecting social cohesion and cultural diversity, as well as strengthening intercultural dialogue.
  • Advocating for a stronger cohesion policy that ensures an enhances interregional cooperation.
  • Reaffirming regional commitment towards reaching the pre-established goals in the Agenda 2030.
  • Fostering a society that is based on the promotion and protection of equality.

Read the political priorities in full at the link below:

Political Priorities 2020-2025

About the Political Priorities

AER Political Priorities are developed by the Bureau, which is in charge of providing the priority areas for its mandate and general orientations for the work of the organisation. 

Every 5 years, at the Autumn Bureau Meeting, Bureau Members will set out the AER Political Priorities, outlining the critical issues AER will need to prioritize to achieve its mission. 

By establishing longer-term priorities, AER will be provided by a common vision and focus, with agreed-upon priorities, for a clear direction and longer-term drive of operational priorities.

Photo by Giannis Skarlatos on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Tool released to aid search for town twinning

By

Are you interested in town twinning or finding a sister-city? The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate for EU Affairs has released a town twinning tool, which can help you find the best match for you. This tool was developed in close collaboration with the Union of Municipalities of Turkey.

Why town twinning?  

The purpose of town twinning is to bring cities and communities closer to each other on a long term basis. It is a democratic and participatory approach to bring different communities closer on basis of common values and principles. The twin cities seek to facilitate joint solution of common problems, enabling the more efficient and effective utilization of resources through experience-sharing. The end goal is to increase the level of satisfaction of citizens, raise living standards and contribute to socioeconomic development and thus promoting sustainable development and world peace.

There can be a thematic approach to town twinning, which allows the local authorities to have a central focal point. Some examples of these thematic approaches include:

  • Decentralisation (subsidiarity, devolution etc.)
  • Inter-cultural exchange (language, history, arts, youth, sports etc.)
  • Technical know-how exchange (efficiency and effectiveness in public services, financial management, leadership, human resources etc.)
  • Good governance (participation, openness, accountability, rule of law etc.)
  • Policy development (planning, analysing, monitoring and evaluation etc.)
  • Local economic development (sectors including agriculture, tourism, commerce, transportation, infrastructure etc.)
  • Social development (sectors including education, employment, health, gender equality, social services etc.)
  • Protection of the environment (sectors including energy, climate, natural resources etc.)
  • Crisis management (disasters, emergencies, migrants etc.)
  • Exchange of know-how (innovation, management technologies etc.)
  • Research & development (technical cooperation, management and service laboratories etc.)

On 13 November, representatives from the municipality of Tarragona (Catalonia, Spain) and Canakkale municipality in Turkey met with the Assembly of European Regions in Brussels. These representatives including the mayor of Canakkale, deputy mayor of Tarragona and CEO of The Turkish Informatics Foundation visited Brussels as part of the town twinning project with focus on smart city. Study visits, such as this one to Brussels, is one of the activities that can be done as part of the town twinning project. However, there can be other activities such as personnel exchange, regular events, capacity building activities and project implementation.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

European Committee of the Regions and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe celebrate 25th Anniversary

By

On 27 June, AER marked the 25th Anniversary of the European Committee of the Regions and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.

The President of AER, Magnus Berntsson, has joined the President of the European Committee of the Regions, Karl-Heinz Lambertz, and the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Anders Knape, to mark the joint 25th Anniversary of these two assemblies of local and regional elected representatives.

The theme of this joint anniversary event was “The Added Value of Local and Regional Authorities in the Unification of Europe”. The event provided an opportunity to discuss the state of local and regional democracy in Europe and showcase the synergies between the work of the two institutions to further strengthen local self-government and regional democracy.

Karl-Heinz Lambertz referred to the need of a proper and proactive application of the principle of subsidiarity so the EU is able to deliver on the issues that really matter to people. The President of the Committee of the Regions also talked about the ​Division of Powers tool, which provides an overview of levels of institutional and fiscal decentralisation in all EU, candidate and Eastern Partnership countries.

Anders Knape emphasised the importance of decentralisation as an indispensable requirement of modern democracy, noting that local and regional governments are essential to tackle local, regional, national and global challenges.

Magnus Berntsson speaking at the anniversary event

In his intervention, Magnus Berntsson highlighted the fruitful cooperation between AER and the two institutions. The President of AER stressed that local and regional authorities are instrumental in the delivery of policies that meet people’s needs and in channelling citizens’ voices. Therefore, their role in the policy-making and implementation must be strengthened, through the sound application of the principles of subsidiarity and multi-level governance. This is about reinvigorating democracy and will be vital to the resurgence in trust in public institutions, said Magnus Berntsson.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regions for peace-building

By

On June 4th, 2019, AER co-organized a debate with the Congress of the Council of Europe about the role of local and regional authorities in peace-building. This debate took place in the context of the World Forum Normandy for Peace. It consisted of a vivid discussion between speakers of a debate panel and afterward with the public.

Different perspectives on peace-building

Moderated by Thomas Andersson, President of the Regional Council of Jämtland (SE) and active member of AER, the debate turned around the question of how local and regional authorities can contribute to peace-building and create stability in their respective region.

Three speakers from different backgrounds were invited and shared their experiences and opinions on the topic. Ms. Kelly McBride, director of the Democratic Society, a non-profit organization seeking more dialogues and deliberation in democracy shared her view from an angle of a civil society representative. In her opinion, one of the most important things local and regional entities can do for peace is making sure that all forms of democracy are given in a territory. All the people living there should have the possibility to influence what happens in their surroundings. McBride suggested, that a more open and participative government, amongst other actions, is advantageous for peace-building.

Mr. Xavier Cadoret, President of the Chamber of Local Authorities of the Congress and mayor of Saint-Gérand-le-Puy (FR) emphasizes the fact of how important the subsidiary principle is to build sustainable peace. It means to give certain competencies to a more immediate and local level so that tasks can be acted out more effectively. The link to peace would be that subsidiarity could guarantee that all the regions of a state feel included in the decision-making processes of a government.

At last, Ms. Dörte Liebetruth, a member of the Chamber of Regions of the Congress and of the state parliament of Lower Saxony in Germany stresses the importance of the local and regional level. Because it is closest to the people, where “we live our everyday life” and experience first-hand what the “decision-makers” conclude, be it on the European or the national level.

Left to right: Kelly McBride, Xavier Cadoret, Dörte Liebetruth, Thomas Andersson

Challenges and the future involvement of regions in peace

When it comes to threats to peace, especially in Europe, everyone on the debate panel agreed on certain points. Forces aiming at disintegrating Europe, the crisis of representation and loss of trust in public authorities, the indifference of people, and fake news are big challenges to guarantee a peaceful coexistence. Another big challenge regarding region’s involvement in peace-building is the lack of financial resources of the local and regional authorities to contribute substantially to peace. Also, a lack of experts and professionals is missing in this field.

The panel discussion concluded, that the future involvement of regions and local governments in peace will be in more and more participative and collective leadership, dialogue and cooperation between regions and levels of government, and fostering cultural encounters. Regions should furthermore work for more empathy, encouragement, and empowerment of people to work towards peaceful and stable societies.

20 to 25 people participated in the discussion after the panel debate and came up with very concrete questions on, for example, town twinning and how to make the citizens participate more in decision-making processes.

Despite countries’ varying levels of decentralization, autonomy, and skills, local and regional authorities in Europe are working to foster ties and contribute to the continent’s stability. By focusing on local and regional issues, the dialogue can often be more fruitful than at the national level.

The World Forum Normandy for Peace took place at the Abbaye aux Dames in Caen, France.
Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Russia: persistent asymmetric federalism #RoR2017

By

Little history of Regional Russia

Russia is a country covering a large part of eastern Europe and northern Asia. It became an independent country in December 1991, after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, commonly known as the Soviet Union). The sate-centred hierarchical approach has always been part of the Russian national historical tradition. During the Soviet period, the political system was highly centralised: it prevented regions to establish international agreements and to develop inter-regional networks. During the post-Soviet era, the Russian decentralisation process has been quite complex. The key objective for state survival has been how to balance centripetal and centrifugal forces, territorial and ethno-territorial principles of federalism.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia was ruled by President Yeltsin. The federal centre was very weak and did not have a clear plan on how to federalise Russia. A Constitution was adopted in 1993, describing Russia as a federal state with different types of constituent units, without mentioning, however, the powers of the regions. By contrast, it outlined the powers of the federal authorities (Art. 71) and the joint jurisdiction of the Federation and the regions (Art. 72). The constitution gives equal power to each of the country’s administrative divisions in the Federal Assembly, (Article 72, Clause 2). Both the legislative and executive branch of each region send a member to the Federation Council, the Upper House of the Russian Federal Assembly.

A strong central government

According to the Russian Constitution, the central government maintains significant authority, even though regional and local governments have been given several powers. The administrative divisions of Russia are: oblasti (regions), minority republics, okruga (autonomous districts), kraya (territories), federal cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sevastopol), and one autonomous oblast . Only republics are recognised as ‘states’ by the Constitution (Art. 5), which has been described as an “asymmetry of the different constituent units”. Local and regional governments exercise authority over municipal property and policing, and can impose regional taxes as well. In the initial years after the passage of the 1993 constitution, they retained considerable powers. The lack of clarity on the centre-regions division of powers and competences triggered a strong resistance from the national republics, which started to adopt their own laws, that often contradicted the federal legislation on several issues.

Regional governments’ tax revenue is not always sufficient to finance their services; for instance, in several cases they have barely been able to cover wages for teachers and police. Large portions of the regional governments’ budgets are needed to cover pensions. Different administrative divisions adopted constitutions that devolved power to local jurisdictions, whose powers vary considerably. Several local authorities, especially in urban centres, exercise significant power and are responsible for taxation and the licensing of businesses. Moscow and St. Petersburg have particularly strong local governments: they both present a tax base and a government structure considerably higher than the country’s other regions.

New reforms once again strengthen centralism:  the creation of federal districts

In order to deal with the emerged asymmetric federalism, as well as with the tendencies of disintegration and separatism, the government of President Putin enacted a number of reforms (such as the bringing into line of the regional legislation with the federal one), aimed at strengthening the ‘power vertical’ and creating a more centralised state system. However, the mechanism of centre-regions relations was not significantly modified by these reforms.

Among Putin’s reforms, the creation of seven federal districts (Central, Northwest, Southern, Far East, Siberia, Urals, and Volga) in 2000, which has reduced the powers of local and regional governments. The new federal districts began to replace the 11 traditional economic regions, especially for statistical purposes. Each district is ruled by a presidential envoy, who has the power to implement federal law and to coordinate communications between the president and the regional governors. Through his envoys, the president can enforce his authority over the regional governments. The regional governors were elected until 2004, when new legislation has established that the president has the power to appoint them. According to President Putin, and following the implementation of the Law 131 (On the General Principles of Organising Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation) of 2005, the development of social infrastructure should increase the opportunities and the responsibilities of local authorities. He highlighted that most of this work depends on the presidential plenipotentiary envoys in the federal regions.

The Central district comprises the city of Moscow and all administrative divisions within the Central and Central Black Earth economic regions. The Northwest district encompasses the city of St. Petersburg, as well as all areas in the North and Northwest regions, including Kaliningrad oblast. The Southern district includes portions of the Volga and North Caucasus economic regions, whereas the North Caucasus district comprehends the remaining units of the latter economic region. The Volga district is made up of units of the Volga, Volga-Vyatka and Ural economic regions. The Urals district includes the remaining administrative divisions of the Ural economic region and others from the West Siberia economic region. The Siberia district unites the rest of the West Siberia economic region and the whole East Siberia. Finally, the Far East district overlaps with the Far East economic region.

Russia currently presents nine federal districts. In 2010, North Caucasus, the eighth federal district, was created from the south-eastern part of the Southern district. In 2014, Russia annexed the Ukrainian autonomous republic of Crimea, and established the ninth federal district there. Ukraine and a large part of the international community did not recognise such territorial claim; in practice, however, Russia exercises a de facto control of the region. The Crimean district includes the federal city of Sevastopol.

by Gianmartino CONTU

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitterand/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Slovenia: regions may fill the gap between the central government and the local level #RoR2017

By

Slovenia has only one tier of sub-national government, i.e. municipalities. Currently, there are 212 municipalities. This means that there are no other tiers of government, like counties, regions etc. Some other forms of regional segmentation exist (voting, police, financial, statistical districts), but not in the form of sub-national government.

Local government prevails

According to the Local Self-Government Act (2007), municipalities perform local matters of public interest in order to meet the needs of their citizens. Specifically, municipalities manage the municipal assets and organise municipal administration, develop conditions for the economic development of the municipality, provide spatial development plans and create conditions for housing, manage and regulate local public utilities and local public services provision, provide social services, and organise local road maintenance, and fire safety etc.

Centralisation on the run

The administrative reforms in the 1990s and 2000s also involved pressures to create an intermediate tier of government, the so-called regions. The reforms began in June 2006, when the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia was amended, in order to enable the transfer of responsibilities from the central government to the second tier of sub-national government, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The main issue under consideration was that of fulfilling the existing gap between the central government and the very fragmented local level of government, where very small municipalities prevailed.

When Slovenia entered into the economic downturn in 2009, and when this downturn contributed to the mounting fiscal problems of the country, it became evident that the imposed cutback measures pushed for additional centralisation, rather than decentralisation of the country. In essence, since 2010, the debates on the possible introduction of the regions in Slovenia practically do not exist anymore. Similarly, the political process related to this issue has been stopped almost entirely.

New regional developments

Slovenia is a rather small country, which might limit the necessity to create an intermediate level of government. The historical evidence indicates that regions and regional affiliation existed and prevailed until the early 20th century, when the unification of the territory was established. The presented evidence suggests that pressures and initiatives to introduce regions existed recently, but this top-down approach was unsuccessful. The result is that there are no regions in Slovenia yet. However, although mainly political and technical considerations prevented the introduction of regions in the previous decade, it seems that the economic downturn reversed the process during the last few years.

Nevertheless, some kind of bottom-up initiatives started to emerge recently that might in the future lead to the potential introduction of regions in the future, although the final outcome of these initiatives is hard to predict. These initiatives are concentrated mostly on boosting the joint municipal provision of certain administrative services, and measures are placed that involve cost subsidisations for this kind of service provision. Interestingly, this form of cooperation has increased rapidly in recent years, both in volume as well as in the number of municipalities involved.

by Primož PEVCIN

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitterand/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Azerbaijan: a state within a state #RoR2017

By

The Republic of Azerbaijan is part of the Eastern Partnership, which is an initiative that enables closer political, economic and cultural relations among the EU, its member states and 6 eastern European partners. Azerbaijan belonged to the Russian Empire until World War I, during which period the Empire was dissolved. In 1918, Azerbaijan declared independence and established itself as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. This first Muslim republic in the world only existed for two years, from 1918 to 1920, before the Soviet Army invaded Azerbaijan, which subsequently became part of the Soviet Union. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan re-established its independence. However, despite a cease re in place since 1994, Azerbaijan has yet to resolve its conflict with Armenia over the predominantly ethnic Armenian Nagorno- Karabakh region, which declared itself independent from Azerbaijan in 1991.

The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan states that it is a presidential republic with three branches of power – the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president exercises overwhelming authority over the three branches, which demonstrates that the Azerbaijan system is a strongly centralized presidential one. In fact, although Azerbaijan’s system of governance can be considered three-tiered nominally, the local and municipal tiers are just an extension of the top tier, in which is the president is afforded the greatest authority.

A highly centralised government

The local tier of government, which is composed of Local Executive Authorities (LEA), can only be considered as such nominally, as they do not have independence and simply implement the decisions of the central government. A legal basis for this lack of decentralisation can be found in Article 124 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “heads of executive power bodies carry out executive power locally; heads of executive power bodies are appointed to their posts and dismissed by the President of the Azerbaijan Republic; the limits of authority of local executive power bodies are determined by the President of the Azerbaijan Republic”.

This lack of decentralisation can also be found in the municipal tier, as the implementation of their competences is controlled by the LEA, who are legally inclined to carry out the orders of the president of Azerbaijan, as mentioned in Article 124 of the Constitution. This same clause allows the President to define the limits of competences of the LEAs, meaning that the setting of boundaries and limits of municipal powers is subject to presidential discretion.

The European Charter on Local Self-Government

The overwhelming power of the president may seem to be limited by Articles 142-145 of the Constitution and the European Charter on Local Self-Government. Articles 142-145 of the Constitution define the key principles of local self-government including those related to municipalities and their competences. In addition, the European Charter on Local Self- Government, which was ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002, requires Azerbaijan to guarantee autonomy and exclusivity of powers to the municipalities. Nonetheless, despite the authority vested in Articles 142-145 of the Constitution and the European Charter on Local Self- Government, these clauses are not reflected in the Law on the Status of Municipalities, as municipalities cannot decide on local issues.

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic

There have been no substantial public administration reforms over the the past 25 years since Azerbaijan has gained its independence; neither municipalities nor LEA possess independence in decision-making. The only subnational authority that has self-governing powers is the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, which is a landlocked exclave of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

According to Chapter VIII of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the status of Nakhichevan is that of an autonomous state, which can define its own constitution and laws, within the framework of the Azerbaijani constitution and laws. It stipulates that “legislative power in Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is implemented by ‘Ali Majlis’ (legislature) of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic; executive power is implemented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Nakhichevan, and judicial power by the law courts of Nakhichevan”.

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has its own competences. According to Article 138 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Nakhichevan Ali Majlis is competent concerning the following: “elections to Ali Majlis of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, taxes, routes of economic development of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, social maintenance, protection of environment, tourism, and protection of health, science, and culture”. In addition, according to Article 144, the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has the right to establish its own taxes.

by Susannah Go

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitterand/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Greece: are regions weak? #RoR2017

By

Regions were created in Greece in 1987 in order to respond to organisational and functional requirements of the EU structural policies. Greek regions were not the expression of historically rooted regional identities. Such identities are not particularly strong in Greece (with the exception of Crete), while all over the country local identities obviously overshadow the regional ones. Out of these Greek “Regions Programmes” only a part coincided with historical regions (in Crete, the Ionian Islands, Thessaly and Epirus).

After the establishment of second tier local governments at the level of the former prefectures (in 1994), deconcentrated state administration was re-structured at the level of the regions (in 1998), which gradually built up their own administrative machinery. Re-scaling of second tier local government at the regional level in 2010-2011 was due to the fact that prefectures proved to be too small to function as second tier local governments and, above all, too small to elaborate and implement development policies and programmes.

A unitary state structure

Although it is certainly too early to predict future dynamics of a very young (3 year old) institution, such as regional self-government in Greece, it is obvious that under the given the restrictive constitutional framework that is oriented towards a strictly unitary state structure no one can speak about “regionalisation” in Greece, but simply refer to a second tier of local government in an extremely centralist country.

The 13 Greek regions are not strong regions. They do not have autonomous or special legislative powers and they definitely cannot be classified as institutions of “regionalisation” that could be compared, for instance, to the Italian or –even less so- the Spanish experience.

Greece remains a strictly unitary state and the Greek Constitution simply recognises “two tiers of local government”. The Constitution defines that allocation of competence (both for local/regional and delegated national affairs) among different local government tiers will be regulated by national law.

Decentralisation reforms

In Greece, local government has seen a significant number of reforms enhance decentralization during the previous decades. Unprecedented economic crisis (since 2008) and especially rigid stabilization policies imposed by the troika of EU, ECB and IMF (since 2010) combined with top- down approaches seem, however, to bring the long-lasting “rise of local government” to its end. A series of laws and policy measures have drastically restricted space of discretion and initiative given to local authorities during the previous years, especially concerning financial and human resources management. Furthermore, the delegation of additional tasks to local authorities has been suspended and a wave of recentralization seems to emerge.

Despite furious opposition, a series of reforms were attempted by the Greek governments. Reforms were introduced not only in economic policy, but also in other sectors such as pensions, labor relations, higher education and public administration.

by Nikolaos-Komninos HLEPAS

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitter and/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Montenegro: not regions, but municipalities #RoR2017

By

An ancient Balkan state, Montenegro came under Ottoman control at the end of the 15th century, but became an independent kingdom from 1910 to 1918. Montenegro then joined the newly formed Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. In 1991, 4 of the 6 Yugoslav republics declared independence, leaving Montenegro and Serbia to form a new republic in 1992, which was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. Montenegro left the State Union in May 2006 by a popular referendum, and became an independent country once again. On 22 October 2007, the new Constitution of Montenegro was proclaimed. Montenegro became a candidate for EU accession at the end of 2010, and negotiations were opened in June 2012.

According to the current legislation, there is no administrative division of regions in Montenegro; thus, there is no decentralisation at the regional level. In fact, the constitution does not identify any entities on the regional level, although there were administrative regions in the past. The country adopted the Law on Regional Development in 2011, which introduced three statistical regions: the Coastal, Central and Northern regions. However, these regions were only established for statistical purposes with no legislative or implementing powers.

Self-government and municipalities

Despite the lack of decentralisation at the regional level, strides towards decentralisation have been made at the level of the municipalities. Currently Montenegro has 22 local self- government units and 2 urban municipalities. The local self-government units are: the Capital City of Podgorica, the Historical Capital of Cetinje, municipalities of Andrijevica, Bar, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Budva, Danilovgrad, Herceg, Novi, Kolašin, Kotor, Mojkovac, Nikšić, Petnjica, Plav, Plužine, Pljevlja, Rožaje, Šavnik, Tivat, Ulcinj and Žabljak. The urban municipalities are Golubovci and Tuzi; and they are a subdivision of the Capital City of Podgorica.

The conditions for decentralisation at the level of the municipalities in Montenegro were first established with the adoption of the Constitution in 2007. The right of local self-government is guaranteed in Article 22 of the Constitution. The Montenegrin system of local self-government is elaborated upon in Chapter 4, which identifies municipalities as the basic form of local self- government. The autonomy and financing of municipalities is specified in Articles 116 and 117 of the Constitution. Article 116 states that municipalities can constitute their own budgets, and are financed by their own resources and the state’s. Article 117 grants municipalities autonomy in carrying out their duties.

the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro

The legal framework for decentralisation also includes the Law on Local Self-Government. This law, which was adopted in 2010, outlines the specifics on the functioning of the municipalities and provides details on the structures, decision-making procedures and tasks of the municipalities. As laid out in Articles 16 and 127 to 130 of the Law on Local Self-Government, municipalities were provided with the means to form an association which represents their interests; subsequently, the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro (UOM) was formed.

The UOM is a national association of local authorities in Montenegro, which aims to develop local democracy and realize common interests of local government units, to improve organisation, work and functioning of the local government, to create conditions for developing various forms of cooperation in all areas of the local community’s work in Montenegro, and to cooperate with international organisations and local government unions. To this end, UOM is engaged in developing and improving the legal system and the position of the local government, accomplishing mutual cooperation between local governments in order to address the local population’s interests, and cooperating with international organisations of local governments and other international organisations.

Local finances

In addition to the UOM, another step towards decentralisation was taken with the Law on Local Self-Government Financing, which establishes the financial autonomy of the municipalities. According to Article 5 of this law, municipalities are partly funded by their own resources. These resources include real estate tax, surtax on personal income tax, local administrative charges, local communal charges, fees for utility equipment of construction land, fees for the use of municipal roads, fees for environmental protection, resources from the sale and rental of municipal property, income from capital (interests, stakes and shares, etc.), fines imposed in misdemeanour proceedings, revenues from concession fees for performing communal a airs and other activities, revenues collected by municipal bodies, services, and organisations through their own activities, revenues from grants and subsidies, and other revenues set by the law.

A wide range of competences

Competences of the municipalities are wide-spanning. They cover the fields of local development, urban and spatial planning at the local and regional level, construction permitting, construction land development and management, performance and development of communal affairs, maintenance of communal buildings and communal order, environmental protection, water management, agricultural land, social welfare, transport, tourism, culture and sports, investment policy, protection and rescue of the local population, and consumer protection.

by Susannah Go

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitter and/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Moldova: are regions lacking autonomy? #RoR2017

By

The Republic of Moldova is part of the Eastern Partnership, which is an initiative that enables closer political, economic and cultural relations among the EU, its member states and 6 eastern European partners. Moldova gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The young republic later established itself as a “sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible state” in 1994 according to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, which has been amended several times to date. The transition of the country from a communist regime to a democratic one gave way to the strengthening of national political stability and administrative bodies, the reform of central and local governments and the restructuring of domestic legislation.

During the transition period, the Republic implemented three administrative-territorial reforms, which impacted local public administration. In 1994, some changes were made to the Soviet system of administrative organisation, however the Soviet model remained largely unaltered. In 1997, Moldova ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Charter), which came into force in February 1998. On 30 December 1998, the Law on Territorial-Administrative Organisation was adopted, which subsequently allowed for a significant administrative reform whose goal was to increase the economic capacity and autonomy of local governments in line with the standards of the Charter. In December 2001, the newly elected Communist government carried out another round of administrative-territorial reforms, which restored a quasi-Soviet model of territorial division of authority and reduced local autonomy on the basis of the Law on Local Public Administration adopted on 18 March 2003.

Regional Governance

Moldova’s current local public administration is organized according to territorial-administrative units, which is based on the principles of local autonomy, decentralisation of public services, eligibility of local public administration authorities, and consultation of the citizens on local problems of special interest, as stated in Article 109 of the Constitution. The structure of Moldova’s local public administration was further elaborated upon by the Law on Local Public Administration of 28 December 2006, which states that the local government operates at two levels of administration. The first level of local public administration consists of local communities, villages and towns, whereas the second level consists of territorial-administrative units5.

The second tier of local public administration consists of public bodies with general or special powers created with the purpose of promoting interests and addressing the issues of the population of a given territorial administrative unit. There are thirty- five territorial units that correspond to this level of local government authority: thirty-two districts (rayons), two municipalities (municipii) -Chisinau and Balti, and one autonomous territorial unit (ATU Gagauzia). There is also one unrecognised territorial unit (Transnistria), which does not consider itself under the jurisdiction of Moldova, but is internationally considered as a part of Moldova.

The role of rayons (districts)

According to the Law on Local Public Administration, responsibilities of the rayons include public order – coordination, organisation and supervision of aspects of military administration; rayon-wide roads, construction, operation and repairs – rayon-wide local public transport; the construction of long-distance gas pipelines and other heat and power facilities of local importance; the coordination and implementation of sports and youth programs; maintenance of theatres and TV stations; provision of grants to the bottom tier ear-marked for personnel expenses in libraries and other cultural institutions other than museums; the construction, operation, and maintenance of primary schools, gymnasiums, lyceums, after-school and other educational institutions, boarding schools; and the social protection and maintenance of social institutions.

Each rayon elects a council, which coordinates the activities of the local councils in order to provide public services at the regional level. The Rayon Council disseminates information regarding draft legislation and acts as a bridge between the national and local governments. There are no specific mechanisms of communication established between the national and local governments; communication between the two is usually informal. The councils are elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot for a term of four years. The Head of the rayon is elected by the local council. 19 Heads currently compose the Union of Rayon Councils of Moldova (UCRM).

The Union of Rayon Councils of Moldova (UCRM) was established in 2012, after the implementation of the Initiative for European promotion project. UCRM is a non-governmental, non-profit and non-political organisation that represents the interests of the local public authorities. The mission of UCRM is to act as a common voice for the Rayon Councils, by representing and promoting them on a national and international level. UCRM aims to contribute to the harmonious development of the local communities of Moldova, by promoting, supporting, and implementing initiatives and projects.

In regards to the financing of the rayons, the Law on Public Administration stipulates that subnational administrative units in Moldova enjoy financial autonomy and have the right of initiative in all matters concerning local administration. However, there is a lack of financial and administrative autonomy for regional authorities in Moldova. In fact, they are deprived of decision-making powers regarding their own administrative structure and are quite dependent on the central government. This lack of autonomy can be seen in local budgeting, revenues, and expenditures, which show that budgetary processes in Moldova are still centralized to a great extent.

by Susannah GO

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitter and/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Macedonia: no longer one of the most centralised countries in Europe #RoR2017

By

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was a constituent state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 1991. Despite experiencing considerable decentralisation in the Yugoslavian period, after independence the country increasingly centralised itself. As a result, in the Nineties, FYROM was regarded as one of the most centralized countries in Europe. The Constitution and law prescribed a number of competencies to the local self- government units, such as in the areas of urban planning, pre-school and primary education, primary health care, social welfare, culture and sports. In practice, however, the competencies were limited to only a few. This is due to the fact that the enabling legislation for implementing such competencies was not put in place.

History of FYROM Local Self-government

In November 1999, a Strategy on Reform of the System of Local Self-government was adopted. For local self-governments units, it foresaw: increased financial independence, the decrease of their number and further decentralization of the central government competencies to them. In 2001, the end of the internal conflict between the two largest ethnic groups, Macedonians and Albanians, led to increased decentralization and delegation of power to other non-Macedonian ethnic groups. Decentralization was considered the best way for shared power among local communities of various ethnic backgrounds. The same year, the Ohrid Framework Agreement was approved and the Constitution was amended. This offered better guarantees for the achievement of the objectives defined by the 1999 Strategy, including further decentralization of competencies, enlarged scope for the use of languages in the local government and new procedures for adoption of laws pertaining the local self-government system.

In 2001, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES, aiming at the creation of regional levels for statistical purposes. The purpose was to provide statistical data at regional and local level on the basis of geographical, demographical, socio-economic and historical conditions. According to this decision, 5 levels were established for the Nomenclature: at level 1 and level 2 the whole country considered as one unit, at level 3 the statistical regions (8 units), at level 4 the groups of municipalities (34 units) and at level 5 the municipalities (123 units).

The adoption of a new Law on Local Self-government in January 2002 represented another step towards decentralisation. It was inspired by the pillars of the European Charter of Self- Government, which had been ratified by FYROM in 1997, thus recognising that decentralisation is essential for local government democracy. According to this Law, municipalities possessed general competency in all local matters. They were in charge of activities of local importance, not explicitly excluded from their competency nor falling under the competency of state authorities. The municipal competencies, prescribed in article 22 of the law, included: social welfare services, child protection, education, health care, urban and rural planning, communal activities, sport and local economic development1. Moreover, the Law on Local Self- Government Finances defined and regulated the revenue generation and fiscal management of Local Government Units (LGUs).

The decentralisation process started on 1 July 2005 in form of administrative and financial decentralisation or transfers. The legal reform was translated into five specific operational programs supporting decentralisation, which were supposed to elaborate the implementation of reforms towards higher local autonomy. The decentralisation process was conceived as a three phased approach, customized to the specific nature of an LGU and its development level. All municipalities have moved to the last phase of decentralisation. However, it has been pointed out that this has not guaranteed in itself the decentralisation success. Criticism emerged as decentralisation was politically-driven. Overlapping leadership and lack of efficiency in local government operations are often considered as obstacles to decentralisation. It has been noted that FYROM did not replicate its past local government success from Yugoslavia’s time. Regarding the financial and budget management, Macedonia is still far from the decentralisation level of EU countries.

Macedonia’s regions and the European Union

In 2003, the European Parliament established a new Regulation on NUTS, which regulated the joint statistical classification of the European territorial units for collecting, processing and disseminating harmonised regional statistical data in the Community. In 2004, the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Law on Territorial Organisation of the Local Self-Government. These developments required to harmonise the existing classification with the newly developed situation. Therefore, in December 2007, The Government of the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 158/2007) and in 2014 adopted amendments to it (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 10/2014).

The NTES nomenclature provides a single and uniform breakdown of territorial units at regional and local level. It also represents a basis for collecting, processing and publishing regional statistics, used for planning and running the regional policy in the Republic of Macedonia. As the Republic of Macedonia is an EU candidate country, the State Statistical Office is obliged to provide Eurostat with regional statistics on various areas, according to the NTES nomenclature. Currently, the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES is made up of 5 levels. NTES level 1 and level 2 represent the whole territory of the State, considered as an administrative unit, whereas level 3 consists of 8 non-administrative units, i.e. statistical regions formed by grouping the municipalities as administrative units of lower level. NTES level 4 consists of 80 municipalities, considered as administrative units, out of which 10 municipalities make up the Greater Skopje, which has a distinct status. NTES level 5 consists of 1767 settlements.

by Gianmartino Contu

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitter and/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Cyprus: a pressing need for reform #RoR2017

By

The evolution of local administration has deep roots in the progression of Cypriot history. The current form and nature of local administration in Cyprus is inherently linked to the transition of Cyprus to a unitary state in 1960. Moreover, local administration and the Cyprus issue are inextricably linked, since the creation of separate municipalities based on community lines was one of the main factors that resulted in the collapse of the system in 1963-64. Moreover, and from a historical perspective, local administration even before the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, was inevitably linked with the rights granted to the inhabitants of the island on the basis of varying modes of enhanced self-governance and decentralisation. Needless to say, such empowerment varied in different periods depending on the relations between the Cypriots and the central administration of the occupying power; this has been the mode for centuries.

There is, therefore, a long history behind the evolution of local administration and from the outset it must be clarified that the existence of reliable sources is scarce, especially in relation to the period until the end of the Ottoman rule in 1878. The introduction by the British of a system of local self-government has been the pivotal moment and that set of arrangements has remained at the epicentre of operations of local administration until relatively recently. The British system gradually established the Village Authorities and the Improvement Boards that were operating until 1999, when they were replaced by a system of communities. This marked the first comprehensive attempt for the reform of local administration in the Republic of Cyprus. That initiative was driven by the intention to take the necessary measures in order to comply with international obligations, arising from a relevant Convention of the Council of Europe on Local Administration, as well as by the need to take the necessary steps for facilitating an effective and efficient operation of Cyprus as a future Member State of the European Union.

A particular context

In order to gain full understanding of the progression of the system of local administration in Cyprus, reference must also be made to the political sensitivities that are related to the Cypriot problem. The thorny issue that was first presented during the last years of the British colonial rule was the establishment of separate municipalities on the basis of existence of two communities (Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots). The key point is that there was no geographical and/ or administrative division since the population was living in harmony in mixed areas, thus the idea about separate municipalities was driven by a purely political rationale that was related to the then on-going discussion about the future of Cyprus after decolonisation. The Turkish- Cypriot side insisted on the creation of separate municipalities and the Greek-Cypriot side opposed the idea for being dangerously divisive. The issue remained unresolved and was transferred in the provisions of the Constitution of 1960 (Article 173), thus creating a constant source of disagreement and tension until 1964. The provision on separate municipalities for Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots in the strict, rigid and partly imposed Constitution of the Republic was never implemented. This was the case despite the existence of a sunset clause requirement in Article 173 that provided first for the establishment of separate municipalities in the five main cities, and then for a reconsideration of the continuation of the scheme after four years. The failure to implement the provision can be attributed to the opposing approach of the two sides. The Greek-Cypriot side regarded the provision as enhancing division and separation on the basis of ethnic criteria, though the provision was practically impossible to enforce given the mixed composition of the population in municipal areas, and would result at the same time in the creation of enormous and disproportionate financial cost. The Turkish- Cypriot side insisted on the immediate and full enforcement of the provision since it was an integral part of the agreement as manifested in the Constitution.

The deadlocked situation of the municipalities issue contributed heavily to the Constitutional Crisis of 1963, the withdrawal of Turkish-Cypriot officials from the administration, government and the Parliament of the republic, and to the resulting relocation thereby into enclaves as a form of de facto local administration. This abnormal situation made impossible the functioning of all constitutionally instituted organs of the state, with the clear and imminent danger of a collapsed state. The doctrine of necessity was thus adopted by the Supreme Court of the Republic in the famous Attorney General v. Mustafa Ibrahim decision of 1964 that was founded on the maxim “Salus populi, suprema lex’’. This in effect enabled the organs of the state to continue to function despite the absence of the Turkish-Cypriot officials on the basis of composition and functions that were to be analogous to the original ones, temporary in nature and necessary in order to safeguard the actual existence of the state.

Local administration

Local administration in the Republic of Cyprus is still based on the principle of the doctrine of necessity. In 1964 the House of Representatives voted, without the participation of Turkish- Cypriots representatives, for a law establishing unified municipalities in the five biggest towns of the island. In 1974 the Turkish illegal military invasion and the on-going illegal occupation of 37% of the northern part of the Republic, affected the way local administration in Cyprus works.

In 1985 a Municipalities’ Law was enacted that included provisions for occupied municipalities, which were relocated to the part of the republic controlled by the government. The same applies for the established communities under the Communities Law of 1999 that replaced Village Authorities and Improvement Boards as forms of local administration.

Several attempts took place the past years for a reform of local administration in Cyprus. In 2014, the House of Representatives rejected a draft law submitted by the Minister of the Interior through the Ministerial Council, aiming to reform the local administration in Cyprus. The need for comprehensive reform is now pressing for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness but also because the Republic has undertaken an obligation under the Economic Adjustment Program (between the Republic on one hand and the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund on the other). To this end, the Ministerial Council submitted in July 2015 three new draft laws on the reform of local administration, following consultation with the stakeholders, with the aim of ensuring a positive vote by the House of Representatives. The Union of Municipalities and the Union of Communities have submitted their objections in various provisions of the draft laws, and it remains to be seen, whether the House of Representative will vote upon the proposed reform on local administration before the next municipal elections that are set to take place in 2016. At the time of reporting, the legislative process remains in full flow and the outcome is expected in the coming months.

by Constantinos Kombos assisted by Antonis Teodosiou & Ioanna Demosthenous

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

More than 40 experts contributed to this work, by delivering detailed reports about the state of regionalisation and multilevel governance in chosen European countries. The study covers 41 countries, and each country report is based on a similar structure, thereby allowing a comparative approach among all studied countries.

  • The first part of the report gives the political impetus from the main European stakeholders
  • The second part of this report entails a summarised version of the country reports. The objective is to provide interested readers with a short overview of the main features of regionalisation in various European countries. The complete versions of the country reports are available on the AER website, under LINK
  • The third part provides a thematic approach based on the main findings delivered by the country reports and the current state of regionalisation in Europe. The trends and outlooks lead to open questions on the future of the regions in the European landscape, and more broadly on the role of subnational authorities in the shaping of the continent.
  • The fourth part gives the floor to the actual regional decision-makers in Europe, across a series of interviews and statements by Presidents, Vice-Presidents and elected representatives of the European regions.

Over the next months, we will be focusing on a different European country’s approach to regionalisation. During these months, look out for #RoR2017 on Twitter and/or Facebook and follow us at @europeanregions.

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Library

Statutory Documents
AER Strategies
Minutes
Media Kit
Activity Reports
Newsletters
European Regions Map

Join AER!

Become a Member

Job Opportunities

Sign up for our Newsletter

Website map