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.

Regionalisation in Poland: modifying territorialisation while acknowledging different regional identities #RoR2017

By

A little history of Poland

Poland is a country in Central Europe. In the early Middle Ages, Poland’s small principalities and townships were subjugated by successive waves of invaders, such as Germans, Balts and Mongols. In the mid-1500s, united Poland was the largest and perhaps most powerful European state. However, during the Partitions of Poland (1772–1918), the nation was divided into three different parts, under the control of the empires of Russia, Prussia, and Austria.

Poland was restored as a state in 1918, but lost again its independence during the Second World War, when it was occupied by Nazi Germany, and becoming a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union after the war. Poland acquired new territories on the west, which previously belonged to Germany, but lost to the Soviet Union its eastern territories. From the 1950’s onward, the communist authorities brutally suppressed the traditional intermediate bodies between municipalities and regions. Regions and local authorities were deprived from all responsibility, simply becoming mere executors of the central decision makers.

Independence and democracy were restored in Poland in 1989. Even though the country borders were so often changed during the recent last two centuries, the notion of “territory” is deeply anchored in the national memory. This high value conferred to the central State, seen as guarantee of the homogeneity of the national territory, explains the difficulties experienced by decentralisation. Moreover, because of the former belonging to different supra national States (German empire for its western part, Russian empire for its central and eastern one, and Austrian one for its southern one), different local cultures are recognisable.

Modifying territorialisation while acknowledging different regional identities

For these reasons, the projects aiming at modifying the “territorialisation” of public policy have been very sensitive, provoking strong debates. The important law on local prerogatives, adopted in March 1990, was achieved by restoring the former sub regional units destroyed by the communists in 1975. Such law delivered more strategic capacities to the local municipalities, even though this dynamic was not accompanied by a transfer of funds. Important public discussion occurred. The core debate was about the amount of regions. Most stakeholders understood the necessity of reducing the size of the regions to better restore the historical intermediary level, the “powiat” (department).

Finally, when the law passed in July 1998, 16 regions were created. Polish regions are called “voivodships” and are the largest territorial division of administration in the country. The smallest region, the southern one of Opole, with 1,2 million inhabitants, was created because of the presence of a German minority in it. Two other regions present a twin regional city. The other 13 regions, more or less, reshape the former pre war “designs”, based on clear regional identities.

Regional Governance

The chosen administrative model has been inspired by the French one: in face of the representative of the State (the voivode, i.e. prefect, in charge of the ex post control of the public funds) one finds the most important political figure, the Marshal (the president of the region), elected by the regional assembly, whose deputies are elected by all the citizens of the region.

The Marshal organises the tasks and directs the ongoing matters of the voivodship, and represents it externally. The Marshall’s Office, a self governing organisation in the voivodship, is a body assisting the execution of tasks designated by the Marshall and the voivodship’s elected members.

At the sub regional level, one finds the “powiat”, led by the Starosta, (an old word for “chief”), elected by the local assembly, and which is more or less the district. The Starosta takes decisions on individual matters in the field of local public administration. Powiats are allocated to towns with populations in excess of 100,000 residents, together with the towns that have ceased being capitals in the reformed voivodships. There are 380 powiats in Poland, that can be either land counties (314 units) or towns with powiat rights, i.e. urban powiats (66 units).

Under this level, but independent from the two upper levels, one finds the Gmina (commune), which benefits of a free statute to develop its own plan of development. The gmina is responsible of all public matters of local importance. Its executive organs are the gmina council and the “wójt” (the mayor or town president). Poland counts 2479 gminas, that can be urban (305 units), rural (1566 units) or urban-rural (608 units).

Freedom of administration: paralysis or unity

Administrative reforms were stimulated by the Country accession process to the EU, which happened in 2004. What is remarkable in this administrative structure is the capacity left to all levels to be independent from the others. Such a feature is related to the historical legacy of freedom of the administrative levels in Poland, but has often been considered responsible of paralysis and blockage. Indeed, the fact that the regional authority cannot constraint its sub- regional levels has often negatively affected regional development, including the not proper functioning of the transport system. On the other hand, as structural funds are used under the condition of their economic efficiency, different sub regional units (and particularly the gmina) were pushed to create some intercommunal links for several common projects.

According to European statistics, Polish voivodships correspond to the NUTS 2 level, whereas the NUTS 3 level is made up of 66 sub-regions, formed by the union of different powiats. The NUTS 1 level consists of 6 regions, formed by joining voivodships: region centralny), region południowy, region wschodni, region północno-zachodni, region południowo-zachodni, and region.

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 Hungary: once again a centralised country

By

The Hungarian state has always been centralised throughout the 1000 years of its history. The county and the traditional administrative unit was born together with the kingdom, and served mostly as a subordinated agent of the central power during history. There have been attempts to rescale the county division by replacing it with larger regional units but these territorial reforms failed due to the successful opposition of the political elite.

The reform debates and conflicts have always been influenced by the aim to protect the independence of the Hungarian state since rescaling or modernisation reforms were initiated by foreign empires. For the first time in Hungarian history the systemic change gave the chance to decide independently on the territorial governance model following Hungarians’ own considerations. The local government model introduced in 1990 provided a strong position for municipalities, but the 19 counties lost their own former power. The last 25 years have been spent on continuous experiments for reforming and rescaling the meso. The EU cohesion policy provided strong motivation for reforms, as it needed strong regions. The 7 NUTS2 regions were designated in 1998 and several reform concepts aimed to equip these geographical borders with public functions and institutions from the central government instead of county assemblies and deconcentrated offices. The failure of these reforms can be explained not just by the lack of regional identity, but rather by the unwillingness of the central political elite to decentralize. Hungary’s accession to the EU in 2004 was a shock for the few who believed that in the Europe of Regions, Hungary would also strengthen the competences of the regions. Instead, a centralised management system of structural funds was introduced; and the formerly created micro and macro regions, along with the old counties were only residual actors in planning and fund allocation.

So it was not such a big turning point when the new government in 2010 started to centralise, cancelling both the NUTS2 regions on the administrative map and the meso level decentralisation on the political agenda. The new constitution in 2011 symbolises a completely different governance model. The strong, neo-Weberian state has been expanding at the cost of local elected governments. The county assemblies have lost all of their former public service institutions. Their only mission is regional development, and in particular managing some parts of the European structural funds. The question of the future remains how county assemblies will cope with this task without the administrative capacity, and real social embeddedness having no other public competences. But is it certain that local and regional governments have lost their former independence and space of movement. Hungary is a centralised country again, and has lost the chance to enter the group of decentralised countries in the near future.

by Ilona PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS

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 Ukraine: lead by local communities

By

Centralised governance inherited from the Soviet times

Ukraine 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. Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. For almost seventy years Ukraine had been under Soviet rule, which was guided by the Soviet system of governance based on a centralised structure. In fact, the current administrative and territorial structure has not changed greatly since independence in 1991; the “current spatial division reflects political principles of territorial organisation inherited from Soviet times,” even though Ukraine ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 19933.

Despite the fact that the Ukrainian Constitution defines the country as a unitary state and guarantees principles of local self-government to be applied in the country, Ukrainian local self- government bodies have not been able to realize their full potential due to over-centralised policies stemming from Soviet rule and limited financial autonomy, according to the EU’s Action Document for U-LEAD. In the past, the central government decided the type of policies and services the sub-national tiers would provide, without knowledge of the actual needs of the population, which resulted in many local authorities failing to provide quality services to their citizens presently.

New priorities: regional & local policy reforms

Nevertheless, some progress has been made recently with the change of the Government of Ukraine in spring 2014, through whose platform local self-government, administrative-territorial and regional policy reforms became top priorities. Since then, extensive efforts towards enacting these reforms have been carried out, through a framework for ambitious reform based on a concept on “Reformation of Local Self-Government and Territorial Organisation of Powers”. Furthermore, important legislation was adopted in 2014 and 2015 concerning laws on state regional policy, fiscal decentralisation, and the amalgamation of local communities.

Different level of local governance

In regards to the amalgamation of local communities, it is a mechanism that is voluntary. Thus far, 172 amalgamated communities have been formed, which is 10% of the total amount under the long-term plan. These newly-established communities have received additional financial resources and powers at the level of big cities of oblast subordination. In addition, they have also been granted powers to establish local taxes and duties. As a successful example of fiscal decentralisation thus far, the budget revenues of these communities have increased two to six-fold. However, due to the controversial constitutional reforms, the status of the separatist- held areas in the Donbas war and Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, the administrative structure in Ukraine remains highly centralised.

Currently, Ukraine is a unitary state with a public administration system that is divided amongst the central government and three tiers of sub-national government. The first tier can be referred to as the regional (oblast) level; it comprises 24 regions along with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, (recognised as Ukrainian territory internationally, although illegally annexed by Russia in 2014), and the two cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol. The second tier consists of 490 districts (rayon), and 185 cities at the oblast subordination level. Lastly, the third tier, which is also the most heterogeneous, is made up of small cities, settlements and villages. Oblasts and rayons have a similar administrative structure, which consists of an elected council with legislative powers, and an executive body, whose members are appointed by the central government. This is not the case for the executive bodies of cities of oblast subordination, in which the members are elected. Yet another administrative structure exists for the capital city, Kyiv, where the mayor is elected, while the executive body is nominated by the President.

Sub-national government = central government?

The main characteristic of the Ukrainian administrative structure is that the sub-national government is mainly an extension of the central government. Cities and towns subordinate to the regional level compose the only tier of government that can be defined as local self- government, as it is the only level of government where the executive body and the mayor are elected. In all the other administrative tiers, the executive is appointed by the central government. For instance, the head of the oblast state administration is nominated by the President of the Ukrainian Republic. There is thus a direct link between the oblast state administration and the central government. There is a difference between the city government tier and oblast state administration in terms of accountability. Since the mayor and executive body in city governments are elected, they tend to be more responsive to the needs of the population than the regional government. On the contrary, the regional government is obliged to mediate between the interests of the regional population (the regional legislature) and the interests of the central government. The regional government is thus accountable to both the elected regional legislature and the central government, whereas city administrations are accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, the structure of territorial governance is asymmetric in Ukraine. Territories that are in the same tier of government may have different competences and resources. Cities of oblast subordination perform tasks and receive revenues from rayons and cities of rayon subordination. The number of sub-national tiers in the country varies according to the presence of those cities. In the case of the city of Kyiv, there is no other sub-national tier of government; thus the city performs the function of both oblast and rayon. Some of the main challenges include excessive variety among units of the same tier, mismatch between responsibilities and organisational capacities of various units, and a large number of local governments and rayons.

These challenges make governing a difficult task in terms of dividing governmental responsibilities effectively and achieving cooperation between different levels of government, as well as between local legislative and executive authorities. Some other challenges include internal tensions, and conflicts of interest at the regional and sub-regional levels due to ambiguous and ineffective political and administrative relations between different levels of government.

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 Albania: a must for EU Accession

By

Albania derives from a deeply centralised tradition of the pre-pluralist era. The transition from a centralised to a democratic system led to the inclusion of Albania in a comprehensive process of political, economic, fiscal and administrative decentralisation.

Albania’s history of decentralisation

The period from 1991 to 1998 marks the first phase of political decentralisation – the transition from de-concentration to decentralisation and the creation of local government units. During this phase, political decentralisation prevailed over fiscal decentralisation and economic reforms. The Constitution, approved in 1998, sanctioned three levels of governance in Albania: national, second level-regional (qarks) and first level – local (municipalities and communes).

The period 1999-2003 marked the start of the second phase of decentralization with the presentation of the National Strategy for Decentralization and Local Autonomy, the adoption of Law No. 8652 (31.07.2000) “On the Organisation and Functioning of Local Government,” which institutionalised regions as the second level of local government. In this context, 12 regions were created instead of the 36 existing districts, but the district continued to appear in the Organic Law.

In 2000, Albania adopted and then ratified the European Charter of Local Self- Government. The adoption gave major impetus to the decentralization process in Albania. In fact, it was followed by the adoption of the Decentralization Strategy in 1999 and the Legislative Package in 2000 that included the New Organic Law on Local Government no. 8652, Law no. 8654 on the Organisation and Functioning of the Municipality of Tirana and the Law no. 8653 on Administrative-Territorial Division.

According to the Organic Law 8652, the role of regions consisted in the design and coordination of development policies and strategies at the regional level; coordination between central and local government levels; providing services delegated by the central government and region’s constituent local units. Anyway, this definition remained general and theoretic.

Last phase of decentralisation: empowering local government

The period from 2003 onwards marked the third phase – the continuing of economic reforms and fiscal decentralization.

The Cross-cutting Strategy for Regional Development, (CSRD, 2007) primarily dealt with the needed institutional setup and regional strategic planning and management processes, while nancial mechanisms were developed independently through the fiscal policy (competitive grants, since 2010 under the Regional Development Fund).

In 2014, the Parliament approved the New Administrative-Territorial Reform that aimed at empowering the local level of government. This reform, upheld the actual number of regions sanctioning the division of Albania’s territory into 61 units, named municipalities, which included smaller territorial units (communes and smaller municipalities). With the local elections of 21 June 2015 the new territorial division will come into force as part of the ongoing reform process.

Regional development on hold

From 2003 to today, whereas the role, functions and competencies of first level, government units were clearly defined, the role, functions and competencies of the regions haven’t undergone thorough analysis, and remained controversial and subject to government initiatives under the framework of the decentralization and regional development reform. In general, the decentralization process has functioned normally for the first level government units, but it has stopped for the regions.

The phenomenon of “ financial gap” and the superposition of the risk of competence with de-concentrated structures of central government, constitute major drawbacks of regional self-government in Albania that require further consolidation of the regional level and a deep reform in regional finance system.

In this context, a lack of political will is evident as regards regions and the regionalisation process. The enhancement of their position is mentioned only under the framework of European Integration and Structural and Cohesion Policy Funds.

So far, the country has not effectively implemented a regional development policy, while the Candidate Country status and integration process into the European Union require the adoption of the EU cohesion policy principles and practices by the domestic RD policy framework. As of today, there is no special law about regions and regional development.

Respecting the subsidiarity principle, an administrative-territorial reform proposing a new territorial division cannot be considered apart from the redistribution of local unit functions.

In this regard, the reform of 2014 failed to define the number of local government tiers, the degree of government decentralisation, the fiscal decentralisation, the relations with the de-concentrated power and the election system modalities for local and regional authority bodies. Therefore, further steps need to be taken in order to correct what the reform failed to achieve as regards the regional level governance.

Albania and the EU

Finally, the vision of EU and Albanian regional actors for qark is its continuous empowerment and consolidation, considering it as an important institution that ensures a sustainable regional and economic development.

In this context, the Albania EU Candidate Status requiring policies and regional development processes, encourages the presence of a second tier with appropriate competencies. This presence should increase the efficiency of the LGU functions, ensure scale for economic development, proper planning in areas such as territory and tourism, education, environmental protection, transport, rural mobility, while respecting at the same time historical boundaries, social interaction, common culture and traditions.

by Lorena Totoni & Kristo Frasheri

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 Luxembourg: municipalities reign, but are merging

By

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, one of the world smallest countries, is located in North- Western Europe. It lost part of its territories to France (1659), Prussia (later Germany, 1815) and Belgium (1839), whereas its independence was established by the Treaty of London of 1839. Luxembourg is a unitary State with a municipal level of decentralisation, established under the 1868 Constitution. It was one of the founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community (1952) and of the European Economic Community (1957), which later became the European Union (1993). Three languages are practiced and recognised in Luxembourg: Luxembourgish, French and German.

Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy, characterised by a flexible separation of powers. Its Parliament (Chambre des députés) is unicameral. The Government is led by the Prime Minister, whereas the Head of State is the Grand Duke. The central government has exclusive legislative power in all fields related to the national interest. In addition, it has general legislative and administrative powers, except for local powers specifically de ned by the law.

Regional Governance

Luxembourg was divided administratively into three districts (Luxembourg, Diekirch and Grevenmacher), abolished on 3rd October 2015. Each district was led by a commissioner, appointed by the central government. They were in turn subdivided into cantons and municipalities (communes). Districts could not be considered as a level of government, but only as a de-concentrated level of State administration, used for territorial and administrative purposes.

The Grand Duke appointed a District Commissioner in each district. They were state officials responsible to the Home Minister and to the Government, and served as contact points between the central Government and local administrations. They also acted as coordinating points between Municipalities. All local administrations (except Luxembourg City) were under the District Commissioner’s direct supervision. As most decisions taken by the Municipalities are subject to the approval of the Grand Duke or the Government, the District Commissioners reported to the Home Minister on problems concerning the management of Municipalities. The cantons are 12: Capellen, Clervaux, Diekirch, Echternach, Esch-sur-Alzette, Grevenmacher, Luxembourg, Mersch, Redange-sur-Attert, Remich, Vianden and Wiltz. They do not have an administrative structure. Instead, they serve as territorial units, used to define the four electoral constituencies (south, centre, east and north).

Municipalities, created at the time of the 1789 French Revolution, are governed by an elected council and a mayor. They maintain links with the central government and act as its local agents. Art. 107 of the 1868 Constitution provides the right to local self-government. Municipalities are considered as legal entities in charge of their own bodies, heritage and interests.

The Constitution does not describe municipal competences in detail. An important legal source concerning the division of powers between the State and municipalities is the Municipal Organisation Act (loi communale) of 1988. The distribution of competences is further specified in several other laws. Municipalities dispose of general competence for all matters concerning municipal interests, but only have administrative competences. Municipal competences are divided into mandatory and optional.

Municipalities’ functions

The mandatory functions of municipalities include: organisation of the municipality, education (buildings and school organisation, but not the curricula and pedagogical matters), municipal road network, traffic management, local planning, water supply and waste management, emergency services, police matters (jointly with the State), public hygiene and health, as well as social welfare.

Optional functions carried out by municipalities include: public transport, management of clinics and hospitals, sporting activities, music education, economic development (e.g. the creation of industrial, commercial and craft areas), tourism and cultural affairs.
The municipalities’ financial resources are derived from autonomous taxation (33.8%), grants (44.3%) and other sources of revenues (21.9%). Since municipalities are rather small, a process has started to merge several local authorities. There are currently 105 municipalities in Luxembourg.

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 Latvia: narrow range of competencies, but space for change

By

After the proclamation of the Republic of Latvia in 1918, two levels of territorial division were introduced: there were 19 districts and more than 500 rural or cities municipalities. Self- governments were abolished after the coup d’état, which established the regime of Kārlis Ulmanis on 15 May 1934.

During WWII Latvia was occupied three times: in 1940 by the USSR, in 1941 by the national- socialistic Germany and in 1944 by the USSR again. The third occupation ended in 1994 when Russia withdrew its occupation troops.

Self-governments were re-established at the end of 1989. On 21 April 1990, deputies of local governments and district governments in the town meeting gathered the newly elected parliament to proclaim the restoration of national independence. From 1990 to 2009 self- governments of 26 districts gained the status of regional government, and 7 self-governments (cities) were granted a dual – regional and local government status.

Regional governments’ principles

The following principles were used with regard to regional governments in Latvia in the early 1990s:

  • there are no hierarchical relations between the regional and local government; the budgets and properties, as well as administrative competences are strictly separated;
  • the revenue base of regional governments is a portion of the personal income tax earmarked for the regional self-government in the amount of 30 % (70 % was earmarked for local governments);
  • regional governments, just like local governments have the legislative right (its binding regulations are binding on everybody within the territory of the region);
  • disputes of regional government with individuals, the state, or other self-governments are resolved in court.

In fact, several larger competence blocks were determined with shared competence between either the state and regions (such as health care) or between the state, regional and local governments (such as general education), however, it did not serve as grounds for introducing hierarchical relations.

There were several attempts of centralisation during 1990s. The abolishment of direct elections in regional governments was achieved by the central government in 1997. The response of local governments was the voluntary establishment of planning regions during 1997-1997.

The Planning regions

After the abolition of district governments in 2009, the role of regional governments now pertains to the planning regions. The competence of these institutions is narrow, compared to what is optimum; however they correspond to the features of a regional government:

  • They are subjects of public law, having the competence established in law;
  • They are established as a result of two-level elections, no official is appointed by the senior level with a decision of a state institution;
  • They hold their own property;
  • They have their own separate budget that can be adopted only by a democratically elected senior decision-making body.

The territories of planning regions formed through the voluntary unification of local governments. To a certain extent these regions cover territories of cultural history; however there are several shortcomings determined by the subjective choice of self-governments.

The planning regions were voluntarily established as a tool for spatial planning and development planning. Taking into account the small scale of regional governments of that time — the districts — a need arose to plan and manage development measures in a bigger territory. The second most essential competence of the planning regions was related to the implementation of regional level projects, thus implementing co-operation in the interests of local governments of the region. The third most important competence of a planning region was related to the public transport planning and regulation.

The current planning region development council is made from the bottom up. Voters elect local government councils. Council chairs independently adopt legislative documents of the planning region, along with internal statutes. Council chairs meet to create a planning region development council, the members of which are selected by the self-government councils from among the deputies. All officials are appointed by the development council, which also establishes companies and institutions of the planning region.

Main conclusions:

  1. During the restoration of national independence, Latvia underwent rapid decentralisation, in which local and regional governments gained significant administrative, fiscal, and legislative autonomy.
  2. Following the withdrawal of the USSR occupation forces, the central structures of the state tried to regain the lost influence and focused mainly on reducing the influence of regional governments. They also centrally governed matters of local and regional government responsibilities.
  3. In the early 1990s, local governments did not support the replacement of regional governments with governors appointed by the central governments; therefore, the proponents of centralisation opted for a policy of gradual reduction of financial and administrative autonomy, which resulted in the elimination of district governments in 2009.
  4. The planning regions established voluntarily by self-governments are currently regional governments that have a narrow range of competences. The boundaries of these self- governments and the key competences are established in the national law.
  5. The discussion continues in Latvia between the proponents of state administration regions and those in favour of restoring directly elected regional governments.

by Maris Pukis

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 France: developed, but incomplete

By

French regionalisation, as developed as it may seem, is still incomplete. The phenomenon is surrounded by political controversies and marked by contradictory strategies. Decentralisation reforms, particularly the 2004 laws on regionalisation, were not of such a nature as to rectify the budgetary imbalances, the specialist knowledge, and the resources that cripple the French regions. The inertia of their skills in the management fields (technical personnel of high schools) has not fostered municipal investment in the eld of innovative public policies, and even less so in terms of inventing euro-regional good practices that can be exported into the evolving linkage system in greater Europe. This results from the fact that, from a political, institutional, as well as functional and financial standpoint, regionalisation in France remains a tenuous effort and a far cry from the generally similar figures that characterise the level of autonomy and the responsibility of the Italian regions, the Spanish autonomous communities, the Belgian regions and moreover, the German Länders or the UK’s territorial entities, all of which have pro ted from the extensive development of competences at the start of the 21st century.

With respect to these experiences, France of the regions is characterised by 5 traits:

  • A subsidiary recognition of elected regional members’ legitimacy to participate in the expression of the general will;
  • The lack of regulative attribution, which confers upon these members the possibility of determining, on the basis of general interest by legislative or regulatory way, the public actions within their jurisdiction;
  • The denial that the regions, in lieu of the state, should assume a prescriptive regulation of lower-level local government policies;
  • A deregulation of regional fiscal capabilities rapidly evolving alongside the theoretical development of their skills;
  • A disorderly representation of regional interests on a national scale, within a context of fragmentation and competition between different levels of government.

As a quantitative point of reference, the total budget of the seventeen autonomous communities amounts to 144 billion euros, and it represents 35,1 % of the total amount of public spending. On the contrary, the total French budget of its twenty- five metropolitan regions only reaches 25 billion euros, representing only 5% of the total amount of French public spending (280 billion euros vis-a-vis state-spending, and 200 billion euros for local governments).

Nevertheless, paradoxically the balance sheet of regional policies isn’t null. Although the competences granted to French regions do not allow them to assume a genuinely effective management of public policy within their territory, we can, however, split the powers of regional councils into three categories.

The first category concerns the sectors that are subject to a transfer exclusively on the part of the state. The category deals with the bulk of professional training, the planning, construction and operation of high schools, and the management of the regional transport of passengers, henceforth notably by rail. On the contrary, junior high schools for schoolchildren fall under the purview of the departments; and pre-school and primary schools fall under the purview of municipalities. These three sectors now occupy a 50%-share of the expenditures of regional councils.

A second category of competences is related to certain powers the regions possess exclusively within the sectors shared by various public stakeholders. This is the case for the responsibility of the cultural heritage sites inventory, whereas the jurisdiction over cultural heritage as a whole is shared by different levels of government. Here we can mention the regional roles regarding spatial planning, via grants to businesses, the development of seaports and airports, and the implementation of digital communications infrastructure. In this second set of competences, we can also add the governance roles that give the region a leadership role, which is still grey and subject to opposition, chief opposition in certain areas such as sustainable land-use planning, economic development, transport inter-modality, and support for higher education and research. In these governance roles, we can also add the participation of the region in implementing a planning contract with the state, and the responsibility for the management of part of the EU programs on its territory.

Lastly – and here we enter a grey area between competence and capabilities – the regions have developed a vocation to act in areas where their competences have neither originated, nor been transferred from another public authority or legal attribution. This is the translation of the notorious general competence clause, which means that as a democratically elected authority at its level, the region defines a regional focus in a large number of areas.

Alongside the laws of January 2014 (on the thirteen cities), January 2015 (on the thirteen metropolitan regions) and July 2015 (on the new organisation of the Republic), the state recently committed to its umpteenth territorial reform after having abandoned the one that had been initiated in 2010. Although the regions have taken the lead in terms of economic development, they are in competition with new actors – cities. This phenomenon will, therefore, be maintained, along with a constant regional redrawing, which allows the territorial multi-layered governance system to remain intact – composed of five main levels of public action – to the extent that we would hesitate to wager on the consolidation of a departmentalised region and/or a regional intra-metropolitan polarisation. It would be to the region’s advantage, as it would allow new margins of action, despite the fact that the urban inter-municipalities and the cities may also work towards a de-regionalisation. This could be one of the effects of calling into question, on the part of the state, the ability to fund local municipalities, or even, the urbanisation sought by the territorial reform that aims to transfer regional and departmental competences as well as the management of large-scale facilities and infrastructure to new structures.

France remains, thus, trapped in its incapacity to modernise its constitutional principle of the “local authorities’ administrative freedom,” which should allow a differentiated organisation and management of the Republic. This would be possible at the cost of a democratisation at the local level, something that will remain outside of the realm of reflection of left-leaning and right-leaning political parties, who have passed 35 laws on the matter between 1986 and 2015. There will, therefore, be a lack of true progress on regionalisation without a revision of the institutions and the constitutional law of the current French Republic.

by Paul ALLIÈS & Emmanuel NÉGRIER

For the full report on France, click here.

 

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

The state of regionalisation in Romania

By

Romanian administrative division into counties (judete) has been documented since the XIV century. In modern times, between 1918 and 1968, Romania’s administrative division suffered repeated changes.

After World War II, when the communist regime reached power, Romania’s administrative division was changed five times. In this context, the new administrative-territorial organisation was shaped, through the adoption of the law of 17 February 1968 on the administrative organisation of the territory of the Socialist Republic of Romania. The counties, cities and communes represented the administrative territorial units, which were kept until present.

Now, the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) is a standard imposed by the European Union for each member country which represents the regional division of the country for statistical purpose. For a better coordination of regional development, in 1998 eight regional divisions were created, which are called development regions, each region having several counties (NUTS II level) without administrative power.

From the administrative point of view, Romania is divided in counties, municipalities, and communes (NUTS III – 41 counties and one municipality, Bucharest – which has a similar statute to a county). The county is the administrative representation of a region from the legal point of view, and is the equivalent of NUTS III regions. Even if counties from Romania are part of the variety of Euro-regions, they don’t have intense activity in this type of collaboration, lacking in EU funds absorption and in regional lobbying in Brussels.

Although law number 215 of April 2001 clearly specifies the decentralised status and power of local and regional administration, in reality things are more centralised. The current legal and institutional framework do not stimulate the development of regional capacity to effectively manage regional development plans and programs. Political life at the local and regional level is strongly connected to and dependent on the political decisions from the central government.

Corruption in the form of nepotism, bribery or conflict of interest arises in all government structures at local, regional and national levels. The new typology of politicians, which were named by media “local barons,” have a negative impact on local and regional economic development. There is a lack of transparency at local and regional level, lack of democracy at local and regional elections, the media is weak and the subsidiarity principle is not functioning. Romania’s poor absorption of European funds (last place in the EU 52% in 2014) is strictly linked to the institutional capacity of the Romanian public administration.

The idea of reorganisation of the country’s regions with legal and administrative power has been made repeatedly in the last 15 years: several administrative proposals emanating from various forums were discussed on public agenda. Unfortunately, no political consensus was achieved.

The last proposal of a decentralisation law was rejected by the Romanian Constitutional Court early in 2014 as being unconstitutional. Romania continues to function under the 1968 law of territorial administrative organisation, with small modifications – NUTS 2 regions were established in 1998 without administrative power. Romania, compared with other countries of its size, is one of the most centralised states in Europe and the financial redistribution is not correlated; public funds are sent from Bucharest to counties and municipalities based on political clientelism.

For the full report on Romania, click here.

Summary by Gratian MIHAILESCU

 

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

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Regions in the UK

By

Relative to most other European countries, the governance of the United Kingdom has tended to be characterised by a high degree of centralisation. Some areas of policy-making social security, defence have typically been managed largely or exclusively from London, with a limited degree of administrative decentralisation to regional outposts. However, this general pattern of centralised governance is complicated by asymmetric devolution to the Celtic nations in respect of some aspects of government.

For the most part, regional government in England is weakly developed. Regionally-based institutions and policy initiatives in England have been dependent on Westminster and Whitehall for their existence. In general, regional government in England has been an area of intermittent experimentation and occasional tentative interest, rather than an established feature of the political landscape.

But for the UK as a whole, reform to territorial governance, and increasing devolution of power to the Celtic nations, has emerged as potentially a profound challenge to the integrity of the UK as a hitherto largely unitary state. Indeed, the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 potentially presaged an existential crisis for the UK as currently constituted. Whilst electors voted by an unexpectedly narrow majority to reject independence, apparently limited levels of support for the status quo nevertheless prompted far reaching questions about the future of territorial governance in Britain.

The report begins by explaining in brief the broad lineaments of the constitution of the UK as it relates to regionalism, before examining the historical approach to regions in England. One way of chronicling the evolution of regionalism is in terms of its political and economic dimensions. These are typically separate, but occasionally combine as in the Blair government’s abortive regional project of the late 1990s and 2000s.

The subsequent section of the report, therefore, summarises in broad terms the historical trajectory of political regionalism, focusing in particular on policy and governance developed for the English regions, in a wider context of reform relating to the government of the four national territories of the UK as a whole. Complementing this is discussion of the experience of economic regionalism and the array of recent subnational territorial initiatives aimed at improving economic circumstances.

This provides some of the context for the subsequent part of the report, which details contemporary experience of regional governance and policy, outlining the abandonment of much of the inherited regional institutional infrastructure and its replacement after 2010 with a series of new initiatives focused principally on inducing economic growth. The report concludes by considering the prospects for the future evolution of regional governance and policy in Britain.

by Iain DEAS & Lee PUGALIS

For the full report on the UK, see here.

 

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

Outermost regions’ work in AER and worry about Guyana

By

It is with great worry that the Assembly of European Regions follows the situation in its French outermost member region, Guyana. After two weeks of unrest and the region’s activity put to a standstill, we look upon the start of the negotiations with the French government with trust and confidence.

AER President Hande Özsan Bozatli : « I want to address to the President Rodolphe Alexandre and the people of Guyana the solidarity of the members of AER and the wish that a positive solution to this grave crisis will be found soon. AER will remain an ally of all Spanish, Portuguese and French outermost regions and wants to cooperate more with them ».

These territories are of huge importance for Europe. Leaders in terms of blue growth and innovation, their strategic location opens Europe to the world thanks to their territorial waters and continental borders with some of the South American giants.  

At the occasion of the Outermost regions forum in Brussels this week, AER Secretary General Mathieu Mori met with the Presidents of the AER outermost members Alfred Marie-Jeanne (Martinique-FR); Ary Chalus (Guadeloupe-FR), Miguel Albuquerque (Madeira-PT), Vasco Cordeiro (Azores-PT) and Didier Robert from non member region La Réunion (FR). These encounters were the occasion to congratulate Madeira and the Azores for the opening of their regional office in Brussels and their continuing involvement in AER Eurodyssey programme. The opportunity also to talk about potential topics of further cooperation. A specific topic has been pinpointed with Guadeloupe and a joint event will be organised for the benefit of all outermost AER members and beyond. 

In light of the coming strategy of the European Union- to be released end of the year – the outermost regions reached a common agreement and handed in a memorandum to the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and Commissioner for Regional Policy Corina Cretu.

 Pictures

Alfred Marie-Jeanne, President of Martinique (FR)

Miguel Albuquerque, President of Madeira (PT)

Ary Chalus, President of Guadeloupe (FR)

Vasco Cordeiro, President of the Azores (PT)

Didier Robert, President of La Réunion (FR)

 Marc Lemaître, Director General for Regional Policy (European Commission)

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

We’re hiring the perfect promoter of regionalisation ! (now closed)

By

Interested in advocating for the interests of the regions of Europe?

We are looking for a colleague to help us advertise the regional dimension in Europe, create magic links with the European institutions and fight for regional policy. We offer a Belgian full-time employment contract (initially 6 months contract, with possibility of converting it to a permanent position).

This is who we are

Do you want to be our new colleague? Here are the things that are great about this workplace:

  • We’re a small team, so everybody is really important
  • We’re also a very great team, with awesome people on board
  • The thing we work for is super cool: who could be against helping people across Europe to work together?
  • It is a place for personal growth, as you get to work with so many very different people with different backgrounds your horizon widens and you change
  • We use cloud-based team collaboration tools, which allows us to keep in close contact. despite frequent travels and different locations – and, it helps us for community building.

To put it simple: we’re the coolest network in Europe.

If this is you…

We need someone who is open-minded, respectful and responsive – in other words, communicative. In this position, you will be expected to keep yourself up to date and well informed and to use your insights in a proactive manner, delivering results in a smart, politically sensitive way.

Our new colleague should speak and write fluently in English, have a work experience in a European/international environment, be fond of the regional dimension in Europe,  and have a good working knowledge of all modern channels of communication (Office suite, Mailchimp, WordPress, Slack, social networks…). Expertise in all EU policies relevant for the regions is an asset for the perfect candidate.

As you may gather from this, “dynamic”, “energetic” and “inspiring” are key words when we look for a new team member. And, it doesn’t hurt if you’re cool and fun to be with.

Your professional profile should fit the responsibilities below.

Managing the AER advocacy work 

As Institutional Relations Coordinator in our Brussels office, you will assist our team on creating strong links with all the relevant institutions (European Commission, European Parliament, Committee of the Regions, Council of Europe, OECD, UN…) and advocating for the interests of the regions of Europe by defending the key principles of subsidiarity, decentralisation and regionalisation, and make sure that the voice of regions is heard loudly by the institutional stakeholders and decision-makers.

Some examples of this:

  • Anticipate the EU legislation and always stay one step ahead
  • Draft positions in a clear, simple and to-the-point language
  • Follow the state of regionalisation in the European countries
  • Manage the Observatory on Regionalisation and a pool of 50 experts
  • Have an innovative stance towards lobbying activities
  • Build and maintain close relations with and within all institutions, DGs, cabinets…
  • Ensure the participation of the best speakers and stakeholders to AER events
  • Prepare high level meetings for AER members, in and outside Brussels
  • Take part in the various consultative and stakeholder work of the EU (Public consultations, EIPs, High Level Groups…)

In short: make AER visible on the European stage to promote its interests and inspire Europe with the regions’ realities and needs.

On top of these tasks, you will also be responsible for managing the Youth Regional Network, a forum for youth regional organisations giving young people from diverse regions a collective voice on the European stage while introducing a European dimension to youth policy in those regions.

Apply

If you like the idea and wish to be part of an international and motivated team with interesting and challenging field of activities, do not hesitate and apply now!

Please send a short cover letter with your CV in English in a single PDF to [email protected] with “AER Institutional Relations Coordinator“ as subject line.

Deadline for application: Friday 17 March 2017.
Starting date: 1 May the latest (only apply if available)

Connecting regions – inspiring Europe

Set up in 1985, The Assembly of European Regions is the largest independent network of regions in wider Europe, bringing together regions from 35 countries – from Norway to Turkey and from Russia to Portugal.

AER is present everywhere on the European continent, inside and outside the European Union. It is the political voice of its members, as well as a forum for interregional cooperation. AER has offices in Strasbourg (FR) and Brussels (BE) as well as representations in Alba (RO) and Dnipropetrovsk (UA).

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER declaration: status quo is not an option

By

Political declaration
Status quo is not an option for the European regions

Adopted by the AER Bureau on 24 October 2016 in Vienna (AT)

 

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) was deeply impacted by the results of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 on the United Kingdom’s membership to the European Union. Although AER expresses major concern over the outcome, it also acknowledges the results of this democratic vote and respect the decisions of the British citizens to leave the European Union.

The outcome of this referendum embodies the numerous problems we are facing in Europe today, from which it can only recover with sound and major changes. The current politically and institutionally stagnant period, which is exacerbated by the economic crisis, has to come to an end. The consequences of the British referendum must therefore be heard, understood and exploited by the political forces to emerge strengthened.

What should be well considered as a difficulty of the European project must now be turned into an opportunity to implement true changes. We are all responsible of breathing life into a new bill for a sustainable, green and inclusive continent, recognising our diversity as a strength. European leaders must focus on policies that will ensure territorial cohesion and the concrete implementation of the principle of subsidiarity, equality for all citizens and generations, and increasingly innovative systems. Europe must bestow a bright future upon its youth.

The whole European continent needs to learn from the current difficulties of the EU and reacts swiftly. The regions of Europe call upon the European institutions, national governments and regional authorities within and outside the European Union to take the following recommendations into account:

Vision and values

We should relaunch the political reasons founding the European integration, based on common and shared values of democracy, human rights, peace, social dimension and rule of law. This should be done first at local level, entrusting citizens and giving answers at all levels, enhancing European identity. We need to improve the effectiveness and the accountability of the political leadership, we need to enhance European vision in education, media, politics. We need an effective management of public affairs, rebuilding trust on our systems, able to respond to the present questions, threats and the opportunities of an emerging future, giving confidence and sense of stability and integrity for candidates and neighbouring countries.

Patterns and institutions

Europe has different types of regions (according to their administrative division), hence it is important to understand the different cultural and administrative differences. Institutions like the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee have a greater role to play in order to represent local and regional interest at the EU level. They should have a more proactive attitude in order to represent local and regional interests at the EU level. Subsidiarity is not just a word but a concept that is really implemented. Tax authority at the local level brings the benefits and costs directly to citizens, and it makes them more responsible by deciding how to use the money, and being accountable. The institutions at national and EU levels need to be re-evaluated: they should be more accountable, transparent and more focus should be put on economic growth. To have better subsidiarity and accountability there should be more attention to local and regional governments. Growth and social care should be based on a bottom-up approach; as a result, the needs of communities would be better satisfied. AER has the power to act in this field, and to build knowledge and responsibility among its members.

Communicate and promote

In order to better promote the European project and to make it clearer to the citizens, communication should be made on the level where it belongs, therefore the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity is key. Decision-makers should explain how the political process takes place before it becomes a concrete decision, thus enforcing the idea that Europe is also a political project endorsed by political leaders. Peace and democracy are Europe’s greatest achievements and should not be taken for granted; all actors are responsible to take responsibility and to exchange with citizens. We need to involve young people in the visions and values of Europe. There is a need for stronger leadership to endorse the European project and to promote its ideas and touch the citizens’ emotions. The EU regional policy remains one of the important tools to promote the concrete outcomes of European cooperation.

 

The European regions take their share of responsibility and will keep on working together, within the European Union, within the Council of Europe, and other forms of cooperation. The Assembly of European Regions will pursue its missions of promoting the regional interests in Europe and fostering an increasing interregional cooperation at all relevant levels. Supporting the idea of a united Europe in diversity, we call upon the European and national bodies to provide the most effective means, such as a strengthened EU regional policy, to meet the needs and concerns of the citizens and revitalise the hope of a democratic, prosperous and peaceful Europe.

Download the declaration (pdf)
Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Building new ties with the French regions

By

On 10 and 11 October, a delegation from the Assembly of European Regions (AER) traveled to France to meet with four regions which are currently not members of AER: Bretagne, Pays de la Loire, Normandy and Ile-de-France. This field visit took place in the framework of this year’s territorial reform in France, that reduced – by merging – the number of metropolitan regions from 22 to 13, while giving them more competences, notably in the field of economy, employment and transport, three key topics for AER. As a result of this reform, coupled with the regional elections of 2015 and many new majorities arising, the AER Executive Board decided to put a strong focus on France this year, and build new ties with the regions. The AER delegation was led by the AER Vice-President for Institutional Affairs and Leader of Hampshire County Council (UK) M. Roy Perry, accompanied by member of the AER Executive Board and regional councillor from Grand Est (FR) M. Christian Debève, and the AER coordinator for membership and institutional relations M. Alexandre Brecx.

AER is very proud to count seven French regions among its active members (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Corse, Grand Est, Guadeloupe, Guyane, Martinique) and ambitions to strengthen this presence in the months to come.

Bretagne

AER Vice-President Roy Perry had a lively working lunch in Rennes with M. Jacques Le Vagueresse, Director of European and International affairs of Bretagne. They extensively discussed about the consequences of the Brexit for the European regions. Bretagne is indeed very much connected to the United Kingdom, be it in terms of economy, tourism, maritime issues – but also in terms of history and culture. They both expressed clear wishes and commitments to maintain strong binds over the English Channel and to keep interregional cooperation alive. The rise of extremisms and populisms in Europe was also at the heart of the meeting, and Mr. Le Vagueresse stressed the responsibility of the regions to communicate more and better about Europe to the citizens. Among other things, they identified various areas of common interest for regional development, exchange of practices and connections with the European institutions to voice the interests of regions.

Pays de la Loire

The second visit of the trip of AER Vice-President Roy Perry led him to Nantes in the Région Pays de la Loire, where he was welcomed by M. François Pinte, 1st Vice-President, Mrs. Vanessa Charbonneau, Vice-President for European affairs, and M. Stéphane Labonne, Director of European policies. After presenting the work and activities of the Assembly of European Regions, Mr. Perry shared experiences as a former Member of the European Parliament. He also gave some very concrete examples of interregional cooperation which were built thanks to AER, and underlined how his County benefited from the AER membership. The representatives of Pays de la Loire showed their interest in cooperation with the European regions and in enhancing their presence on the European stage. They also shared the new European strategy of the region “A more useful Europe for a more efficient Region“ with the AER delegation, which will serve as a basis for further discussions.

Normandy

Priollaud Debeve PerryFor the third meeting of the trip, M. Roy Perry was joined by M. Christian Debeve. They paid a visit to M. François-Xavier Priollaud, Vice-President in charge of European and international affairs for Région Normandie, in the Parisian office of the Régions de France. Normandy is a “new region“ from the reform, made up of Lower and Upper Normandy. The delegation exchanged on the new structure and new competences hold by the regional council, and more generally about the state of decentralisation in Europe, a very important topic for AER. M. Priollaud then introduced the region’s European and international strategy to the AER delegation. He stressed in particular the importance of keeping strong links with the South of England, a message well heard and shared by M. Perry, Leader of Hampshire County Council. Building on the history of the region and its ties with Europe, they extensively discussed about the contribution of Normandy to the process of peace and democracy, a topic at the very heart of the AER priorities.

Île-de-France

img_4075For its final meeting with the French regions, the AER delegation met with M. James Chéron, President of the committee for European affairs in the regional assembly of Ile-de-France. M. Chéron addressed the issue of the UK referendum with M. Perry, expressing their fears about the coming months and years, and the long negotiation process ahead. After an informative discussion about the structures and missions of AER, they got back the very long history of Ile-de-France within the network, and the key role it has played over the last decade. M. Chéron gave some insights on how the regional council is now working, its main driving forces and how it envisages its presence in the European arena. This very useful meeting was an important opportunity to re-create links with the region, and launch ideas for future cooperations. As stated by M. Chéron: “exchange, share, build, mutualise, succeed!“

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER Observatory on Regionalisation contribution on regional diversity

By

The AER Observatory on Regionalisation (Enrico Martial and Alexandre Brecx) took part on 21 April 2016 in the first Jean Monnet seminar in Lille focusing on the heterogeneity of the regions inside the EU. French author Edith Lormel wrote about the main findings in an interesting article recently published on the website La documentation française. The article makes a review of the main conclusions of the seminar, which can be summarised in two main ideas:

a) the diversity of European regions makes it impossible to apply a general rule.
This diversity has its roots on the different situations member states were when they joined the EU, but also on the diverse reaction of these member states to the European policies that aim to promote subsidiarity and to encourage regions to take a more active role, as a level that is closer to citizens and potentially could reduce the distortions caused by the big differences existing among countries inside the EU. Some countries have as a result adopted a regional, decentralised model of state (e.g Poland, Netherlands, Germany, Austria) while others are zealously protecting the role of a central state (e.g Romania, Portugal) or alternate measures that go in favour and against a strong regional level in their territories (e.g. Italy, France). Finally we find countries in Europe where the existence of pro-independence forces interfere with the process of regionalisation and create a resistance in the central governments to advance (this can be the case of UK with Scotland, Spain with Euskadi and Catalunya, and Belgium). The fact that a new independent state would need to go through the complete accession process without guarantee of being accepted by all MS has been successfully used as an argument against the independence in the Scottish referendum.

b) the increasing importance of metropolitan areas create a challenge for the regions.
The last 15 years have seen the metropolitan areas claiming a role in integrating territories at expense of municipal or provincial competences, and competing with the regions in some cases. This competition should be left aside to take advantage of potential synergies that will come out of the articulation of the pairing Metropole-Region; this is already happening in some small countries such as The Netherlands.

20141020_vue_aerienne_jacques_leone_860

The seminar presented as well the result of the work of a group of students from the University of Lille 1 on the conditions which make the regional level efficient and therefore relevant in Europe:

  • Legitimacy: given by the state and confirmed by the European Union through the Committee of the Regions and European funding for projects.
  • Capacity: which depends on its competences (depending on the level of decentralisation), its economic muscle, the availability of financial resources, and the geography of the region.
  • Identity: rooted on historical traits, or acquired through economical success in a more dynamic conception of identity.
  • Representation: a parliament is the traditional channel to listen to the voice of the citizens. However, more dynamic participation tools are becoming more and more important thanks to available technologies.

The meeting in Lille that is at the origin of this article was the first of a series of activities that aim to dissect the situation of the Regions in the EU. The next activity will take place on December 2016. If you want to refer to the article that gave origin to this post (in French): Edith Lhomel, «La régionalisation en Europe. Quelques pistes de réflexion», [email protected] Europe, 1er juin 2016, La Documentation française © DILA

Learn more about AER’s Observatory on Regionalisation.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Romania

By

Gratian Mihailescu, AER expert on regionalisation issues, was invited at Adevarul live to comment latests statements of Romanian prime minister Dacian Ciolos regarding decentralisation and reform of public administration.

The Romanian government is concerned about three main aspects:

  1. a) fragmentation at decision level of local government, especially in rural areas, but also at regional level
  2. b) serious problems of coordination and integration of various development programs financed from national funds or European at all levels: local, county, regional, national.
  3. c) financial resources available to local government: their low incomes and the fact that majority of local authorities rely almost exclusively on funds transferred from center authorities (taking into account the political color of the mayor or president of the county)

Regarding the debate of the regionalization there are 3-4 types of alternatives which could be the starting point of the debate.

  1. Association between different counties in order to develop projects
  2. Establishing 8 administrative regions (established on structure of NUTS 2 development regions) as a third level, maintaining the intermediate level – county councils.
  3. 8 administrative regions without 42 counties
  4. Smaller administrative regions (15-18), created by the merger of 2-3 counties based on socio-economic criteria

Mr Mihailescu explained in the TV show that the technocrats government led by prime-minister Ciolos made this decentralization/regionalization proposals which should be implemented by political class, after the elections (local, national) from 2016.

Watch the interview here.

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

Search

Website map