Assembly of European Regions

Connecting regions, inspiring Europe since 1985

You are here: Home / Archives for Eastern partnership

This is the tag for all posts relating to eastern partnership.

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

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 Georgia: the politics of regional development are improving #RoR2017

By

Georgia is an independent, unified, and indivisible state, as confirmed by the referendum of 31 March 1991 – held throughout the territory of the country, including in the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia and the Former Autonomous District of South Ossetia – and by the Act of Restoration of State Independence of Georgia of 9 April 1991.

Territorial arrangement remains an open question

The Constitution of Georgia leaves open the question of territorial arrangement, leaving the issue aside and linking it to the future restoration of territorial integrity. According to Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Georgia, “Constitutional law shall determine the territorial state structure of Georgia on the basis of the principle of delimitation of powers after the complete restoration of jurisdiction of Georgia over the whole territory of the country.” The territory of the State of Georgia was determined as of 21 December 1991.

As mentioned above, the Constitution left open the question of territorial arrangement of the country, hence the question, which form of territorial arrangement should Georgia choose: unitary, regional or federal? By analysing some articles of the Constitution of Georgia, the legislation somehow excludes the unitary system. The mentioned 3rd article of the Constitution discusses this issue, as well as the 4th article, according to which two chambers shall be set up within the Parliament of Georgia – the Council of the Republic and the Senate – after appropriate conditions have been created and local self-government bodies have been formed throughout the territory of Georgia.

The Council of the Republic shall consist of members elected under the principle of proportionality. The Senate shall consist of members elected from the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, the Autonomous Republic of Ajara, and other territorial units of Georgia, as well as 5 members appointed by the President of Georgia. The analysis of these paragraphs lets us suppose that after recovery of territorial integrity we will deal with a minimally decentralized and maximally federalized territorial arrangement; however, the distribution of power will be seen in the bicameral parliament and the existence of its upper chamber, Senate, as the existence of representations of territorial units is typical for countries with wide-spread decentralization or federal arrangements. “Legal” regions in Georgia, as administrative-territorial units and units which have the status of legal entity, don’t exist. However, we shall mention that the concept of “region” has different meanings in different issues of Georgian legislation.

“Region”: different meanings for Georgia

According to the current situation, the territory of Georgia includes the capital city Tbilisi and 9 historic-geographic regions; and state governors are assigned in the borders of its territorial- administrative units. In the 2010 State Strategy of Regional Development during 2010-2017 assigned by Government of Georgia, within the realization of state politics of sustainable region development, a region is defined as a functional planning unit, which is the set of administrative territorial units and, as a rule, matches the operational area of Georgia’s State Governor. On the ground of the goals of the strategy, Tbilisi, Autonomous Republics of Georgia and temporal administrative territorial units are also considered regions.

From the historic-geographic point of view in present Georgia the following regions are formed: Abkhazia, Samegrelo and Zemo Svaneti, Ajara, Guria, Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti, Imereti, Samtskhe-Javakheti, Shida Kartli, Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Kvemo Kartli and Kakheti.

Some of the regions mentioned above have different statuses according to the Constitution of Georgia: (Autonomous Republic of Ajara, Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, South Ossetia). Unlike other regions, autonomous republics have their own representative and executive authority, own budget and property.

Besides autonomous republics, municipalities and regions are joined into 9 regions within the remaining territory of the country. There is no uniformity between the regions in size, number of municipalities it consists of and/or population number and ethnic composition. There is no legal difference between the statuses of these regions. Their common characteristics are:

  • Mentioned regions, unlike autonomous republics, do not have special statuses. – Most of their borders match their historic-geographic borders.
  • The 9 commonly mentioned regions have no independent legal status.
  • They do not have their own representative nor executive authorities.
  • They do not have their own budget and property.
  • Municipalities, established in the framework of regions, unlike the regions themselves, have their own representative and executive authorities, and budget and property.

Municipalities

Unlike the regions, municipalities have the status of self-governed units and their own, representative and executive authorities, elected by direct elections. Self-government units, the status of municipalities, the basis of legislation on local self-government authority, the rights of local self-government, the rules of their establishment and operation, the questions of financing and budget, and other issues within the historic bounds of a region are regulated by the organic law of Georgia of 5 February 2014, “Local Self-Government Code”. Municipalities have their own elective, representative and executive bodies. International support, especially its financial implication is very important for the regional development of Georgia. From this point of view, the activities of the EU, as a partner, are especially important. Since the 1990s, the EU has helped Georgia to eradicate the results of conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and it continues to support projects in the region after the August war of 2008. The EU also helps to substantially improve living conditions of temporarily displaced people in Georgia. In 1999 the relationship between EU and Georgia was regulated by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. In August 2013, important negotiations regarding the Association Agreement between Georgia and European Union were finalized, which gave the parties the opportunity to negotiate a treaty on the summit of EaP (Eastern Partnership) in November 2013. On 27 June 2014, the Association Agreement between Georgia and EU was signed, as well as the Agreement on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA).

Future regional development

By the end of the report it can be mentioned that the existence of improved politics of regional development in Georgia is based on many objective conditions. The most important among them is restoring jurisdiction on to the whole territory, which should be followed by determining the constitutional legislation of the state territorial arrangement. After all, it is possible that the country will have complete politics about the country’s regional development. However, when we talk about the regional development of Georgia and its future, we have to mention such constitutional changes, which will help the regional development of the country, and will be realized before the constitutional determination of territorial arrangement.

by Davit GABAIDZE

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 Armenia: improvements of local self-government needed

By

The Republic of Armenia 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. Armenia gained independence from the Soviet Union on 21 September 1991. For seventy years Armenia had been under Soviet rule, which had imposed the Soviet system of governance based on “democratic centralism”. Since Armenia had been entrenched in the traditions of the highly centralised Soviet state, the introduction of a new territorial administrative division and the establishment of local self-governance proved to be rather difficult. The transition to a more decentralised model of governance was further impeded by a number of factors, including the war in Nagorno-Karabagh, the blockade and the economic crisis, which displaced the government’s attention from fundamental reforms for a new democratic state to the aforementioned factors.

implementation of a local self-government

A system of local self-government was finally established after the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia on 5 June 1995, by way of referendum. Following the adoption of the Constitution, there were three waves of reforms in local self-governance. The first wave marked the years 1995 – 1996 as a period in which the new territorial and administrative division was introduced and the Law on Local Self-Government was adopted, which allowed for the segregation of the local self-government from the state government for the first time in the history of the young Republic. The second wave was marked by the adoption of a new Law on Local Self-Government in 2002 and subsequent reforms reflected in the amended Constitution in 2005. Finally, the third wave was marked by the adoption of the Law on Local Self-Government in Yerevan in 2008, which allowed for changes in the entire system of local self-government.

The implementation of local self-government in Armenia is regulated by Articles 104-110 of Chapter 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, which is defined primarily by the Law on Local Self-Government. This law is based on the European Charter of Local Self- Government, which Armenia later ratified in 2002. In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, the public administration bodies are divided into three groups: state administration, regional administration, and local self-government. However, it may be more accurate to say that the Armenian government has a two-tier structure, as administrative power is principally divided between the Central Government Ministry of Territorial Administration and the communities.

Marzes: Armenia’s administrative powers

In fact, the administrative power of the regions (marzes) is derived directly from the state, with marz governors implementing the territorial policy of the state government in the regions. Marzes are not a separate level of government since they do not have their own budgets nor elected officials, but are governed by marz governors, who are appointed and dismissed by government decrees, which are subject to ratification by the President of the Republic. The activities of the marz governor’s offices consist of implementing the territorial policies of the state government, supervising activities of the local governments, and ensuring the link between the state government and the local government authorities.

Within the bounds of the authority vested by the law, marz governors carry out the state’s regional policy in following areas: nance, urban development, housing and utilities, transport and road construction, agriculture and land use, education, healthcare, social security, culture and sports, nature and environmental protection, commerce, public catering, and services. Marz governors also coordinate the activities of regional services of the executive authority in the following areas: internal affairs and national security, defence, communication, energy, taxes, emergency situations, civil defence and others.

Communities play their part in local governance

Although most administrative power is held by the Central Government Ministry of Territorial Administration, some administrative power is exercised at the level of the communities, which can thus be considered a separate tier of government. This second tier of government exists in both rural and urban communities, which consists of one or more settlements. There are 1000 settlements in Armenia, which are unified into 926 communities, of which 48 are urban, 865 rural, and 12 considered as Yerevan district communities. Within the local government structure of the communities, the Community Council Elders (Avagani) and the Head of the Community (often referred to as a Mayor) play major roles, as they comprise the local decision-making bodies. They are elected for a four-year term by secret ballot on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage in accordance to the law.

Together, they comprise the local administration and fulfill the following responsibilities: “to provide for the rights of citizens and the interests of local self-government; to provide local development planning; to manage financial matters and community property; to implement projects and achieve strategic goals; to define, calculate, and forecast citizen needs, and prepare the relevant draft resolutions; to assign resources for public services; and to supervise the implementation of the four-year development plans”.

The finances at the level of the communities are heavily dependent on state budget transfers, which often comprise over fifty percent of local budget revenues, and are regulated by the Law On Financial Equalization, which was promulgated in 1998.

Further developments

The reforms that were made in the Constitution in 2005 are a reaction to the provisions and proposals set out within the framework of cooperation between the Republic and the Council of Europe. These changes aim to foster the improvement of local self-government, democratisation and correspondence of the legislation according to the principles of European Charter of Local Self-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 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

Polish Local Government Support for Green Energy and Climate Projects

By

Adriana Skorupska is an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in the Eastern and South Eastern Europe Programme.
Her interests include the international cooperation of self-government, cross-border cooperation and the decentralization reforms in the Eastern Partnership Countries, especially in Georgia and Ukraine.

She published an article in the Bulletin of the Polish Institution of International Affairs in June 2015 on “Polish Local Government Support for Green Energy and Climate Projects”

Read the full article

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER Political Priorities

By

Ratified by AER General Assembly 2015

In these troubled times of crisis, when confidence in public institutions is decreasing and there is a tendency for everyone to focus efforts on their own communities, regions have to be the leaders for change. The end goal of regional authorities must always primarily be to make their territory the best possible place to live for their citizens. To this end, they need to improve the services they deliver to the people in order to keep their trust.

The AER’s mission is to address regional political concerns and foster leadership excellence, in order to provide services for better decision-making and offering visibility to regions in Europe. The objective is to make regions a driving force for political, economic and social development, with a view to accomplishing a multi-player Europe. Our guiding principle is subsidiarity.

To this end, the AER fosters interregional cooperation: this means working together on common projects, sharing and transferring best practices and learn new methods and ideas to enrich regional policies.

The AER must be a driving force in the field of governance, territorial reform and (re)definition of regions’ competences, building on the experience of its members and on its guiding principles. An example of this is the lobbying work carried out by the AER towards the main European institutions, aiming to integrate a territorial dimension into the centre of all policies designed at the European and international level.

In accordance with its mission, decentralisation, youth and equal opportunities, remain key transversal issues that are an integral part of the AER DNA.

In this context, here are the AER priorities for 2015-2017 :

Supporting regions in ensuring a sustainable future for all

Supporting regions for fostering a more sustainable growth and investing in future generations

The AER aims at fostering economic development for all regions and at supporting regions in ensuring the sustainability of their policies, from a social and environmental perspective. This encompasses issues such as territorial planning and environment, sustainable strategic choices in energy policies, but also regional policies dedicated to youth, neighbourhood policy actions and responsible social choices. This aims at providing equal opportunities for all citizens, as well as education measures to strengthen the future generations. For regions to perform better in these areas, resources are needed: the AER will remain vigilant on the implementation of the European Union cohesion policy and will start reflecting on the future of this policy after 2020.

Supporting employment policies in European regions

The AER has made it a priority to support employment in all European Regions. Regions act in the field of education, training and entrepreneurship and many AER activities will continue to help regions in their fight against unemployment.

Building a sustainable future also means peace and stability in the wider Europe

The AER contributes to ensuring continued dialogue between countries at war or stuck in frozen conflicts. Hence the importance of the work performed in the framework of the neighbourhood policy, around the Black Sea, the Mediterranean areas and for the Eastern Partnership.

Sharing regional policies that improve wellbeing

Any strategy does not and should not only make regions an attractive place for businesses and investments, but first and foremost for its inhabitants

The attractiveness of a territory, in terms of transport, health and social policies, attitude to new businesses, leisure, culture, is a key for economic development but also for the wellbeing of citizens. In our old European societies, this means also to take concrete measures on demographic change and AER should support its member regions in this respect.

Supporting integrative forces within the regions

The AER focuses on creating inclusive societies that will encourage citizens’ participation to public life, prompt them into starting new businesses and become genuine integration drivers. Inclusion comes through education, equal opportunities and employment: 3 key topics that are central to the AER. Territorial integration is not sidelined either: this includes transport and communication policies, and maintaining public services in rural or disfavoured areas. Territorial cohesion is a condition for social inclusion.

The AER may also focus on issues relating to both the integration of asylum and refugee reception and integration in general.

Making European Regions the connecting link between Europe and citizens, while increasing the link between the European Regions

Promoting multi-stakeholder approaches, cooperating with different parts of the society: this is what partnership is about

Working with youth, empowering citizens via innovative participatory approaches, listening to business owners and investors and understanding what their needs and expectations are, reflecting on regional media, to maintain proximity information and mix it with more macro information, thus introducing Europe at the local level, finding new ways to deliver public services to all the citizens.

Interregional partnership and cooperation remains at the heart of AER actions

Making AER the connecting link among regions also means contributing to their attractiveness, notably through enhancing the connectivity of territories and citizens, via the Trans-European Transport Networks, among other initiatives.

Using networks and interconnections to boost the regions’ innovation potential

AER, as a network, is a key tool for interconnection of stakeholders at international level. By sharing best practices and making AER members interact with each other, by raising the international profile of European regions and bringing them the necessary support for change management, AER is fostering innovation and economic cooperation on the territories. Regions are drivers for innovation, for example in healthy ageing, adapt to the digital agenda and cooperate via many different EU programmes on innovation strategies. AER’s mission is to aggregate all this energy and knowledge and disseminate it all over Europe.

Multiculturalism is also an innovation vector: intercultural dialogue, interregional exchanges, promoting language and cultural diversity are at the core of AER action.

Accompanying youth towards better involvement and participation in public life

The AER promotes the foundation of youth councils and other types of youth representative organizations and supports the development of education systems so as to increase youth participation. In line with the priorities of the EU and UN, the AER sees youth, and working with youth, as the key to growth, success and sustainability, as well as to a wealthy society with proper jobs.

With these priorities, the AER aims at making our regions stronger. Using its different tools, the AER is gathering, capitalising and disseminating its members’ expertise and also contributes to actively train regional teams throughout wider Europe.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

The role of local government in national foreign policy in Poland

By

Adriana Skorupska is an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in the Eastern and South Eastern Europe Programme.
Her interests include the international cooperation of self-government, cross-border cooperation and the decentralization reforms in the Eastern Partnership Countries, especially in Georgia and Ukraine.

She published an article on “the role of local government in national foreign policy in Poland” in April 2015.

Read the full article

 Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Committees 1 & 3 joining forces

By

Following last year’s positive experience, AER Committees ‘Economy and Regional development’ (1) and ‘Culture, Education Youth and International Cooperation’ (3) joined forces again from 5-7 November to discuss in Arnhem (Gelderland-NL) about the state of play of their political priorities and activities.

This time the format of the plenary meeting changed with the main focus being on two political debates: ‘Energy security’ and ’The role of regional media’.

Committee 1’s working groups (WG) and Committee 3’s Sub-Committees (SC) work at a glance:
While WG “Transport“ discussed why connectivity is essential to Europe’s regions, SC “International Cooperation” tried to identify new possibilities to deepen the relationships with regions from the Eastern Partnership. SC “Youth” worked on a toolkit to complement the political report on youth participation in democratic life. At the same time climate change was the topic of WG “Energy” and a proposal for the elaboration of a political report on “energy security” has been submitted. SC “Education” debated on questions related to early school drop-outs and how to improve the transition from school to the labour market. The WG “Investment, Business and SMEs” focused on how to turn environmental challenges into business opportunities. Finally the WG “Rural development” discussed the trends, key challenges and opportunities for European rural areas in the coming years, while SC “Culture” presented regional experience in the field of ‘Culture and Health’ and how it can contribute to the wellbeing of the society.

The work sessions ended with a meeting of the working group on school drop-outs which started sharing experience in the field of compensation measures. The Summer Academy Organising Committee worked on the agenda for the upcoming Academy in Mordovia (RU) from 16 to 22 August 2015.

 Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER backs the giant steps in EU-Georgia relationship

By

AER President and acting Secretary General went to Tbilisi (GE) in October. This visit came a few months after the regional elections in Georgia and the historical signature, in June, of an association agreement between EU and Georgia, which deepens political and economic ties in the framework of the Eastern partnership.

The timing was perfect to discuss the state of decentralisation and the role regions will play in the future. The delegation met with Alex Petriashvili, State Minister for European integration, who stressed the importance of the government decentralisation agenda and the role AER could play in helping both the State and the regions deliver more subsidiarity.

AER met Aleksandre Iosebashvili, deputy governor of the Imereti region, keen to be among the first new regions to join AER. Building on the positive experience of the Adjara region, an active AER member, and on the State commitment, the follow up is now being done to welcome new Georgian regions.

This trip was also the occasion to greet Innovator, member of the AER Business Community.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

5th Black Sea Summit – Using existing bridges to rise above new walls

By

Bucharest (RO), 3 October 2014

Bearing in mind the challenging political context that affects this area, the Assembly of European Regions (AER), at the kind invitation of the National Union of County Councils from Romania (UNCJR), held today its 5th annual Black Sea Summit in Bucharest, Romania. The 100 high level participants present during the Summit adopted the ‘Bucharest Declaration’, a political statement that focuses on the place of the Black Sea Synergy within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP).

This year’s edition of the Summit took the opportunity to welcome the Association agreements between the EU, Ukraine, Georgia and the republic of Moldova signed in July. This new step for these Black Sea regions recognises the importance of the involvement of the EU to promote a sound and fruitful cooperation within the area, but also highlights the work still needed to be done.

“We consider as urgent that a true Black Sea Strategy be put in place by the European Union, which would offer the ground for a much needed integrated approach of the area. A real synergy among the European policies must be ensured, in particular with regard to the Eastern Partnership and Danube cooperation programme, but also beyond, to keep important contacts with the Russian Federation.” stated Hande Özsan Bozatli, AER President.

“Indeed, the political and security issues in Eastern Europe have led the Black Sea Basin and its regions to undergo a test period, particularly suspending numerous projects with Ukrainian regions. The UNCJR is prepared to further develop links with Ukraine using all the means provided by the Black Sea cooperation. I call all fellow neighbouring regions to do the same”, declared Marian Oprisan, President of UNCJR and President of the Vrancea County.

Although the strategy for the Black Sea Basin Programme adopted by the participating countries in July represents a step in the right direction, AER is concerned that the areas for cooperation identified under each objective – whilst defined on the basis of an open consulting process and SWOT analysis – be very restrictive and too specific to encourage true cooperation. Therefore, AER through the Bucharest declaration, insists that support to cooperation and “people-to-people actions” through key fields such as Youth, education, social inclusion or health, would bring a strong contribution to the objectives of the programme, granting more equal opportunities directly to its citizens.

“Central governments still have too much power which could be passed down to a more local level, in order to boost efficiency, dialogue and stability for the citizens that they represent,” mentioned Romanian Prime Minister Victor-Viorel Ponta. “The principle of subsidiarity, which is the foundation of the European Union (EU), as well as the role of regional local authorities need to be enforced to better forge a strong, inclusive and flexible cooperation”.

Finally, President of the Committee of the Regions Michel Lebrun reminded the participants of the Summit that regions of the Black Sea Basin already have the tools and necessary bridges to overcome the new obstacles, which they are currently facing. A pursued integrated approach and strengthened partnership between Black Sea regions will continue to foster cross-border cooperation.

Download the AER Black Sea Declaration

For more information: [email protected] AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Meetings with Committee of the Regions and European Commission Presidents

By

Brussels (BE), 18 September 2014

Today, Dr Hande Özsan Bozatli, President of the Assembly of European Regions (AER), met the outgoing European Commission’s President Barroso for a final talk, together with the Presidents of the other main local and regional organisations*.

AER President focused her speech on the cooperation in the Eastern Neighbourhood and the Black Sea area. “As our membership comprises regions from wider Europe, AER monitored actively the development in the framework of the Eastern Partnership policy, designed as a new way of getting to grips with our Eastern neighbours.” While pointing out the importance of including regional and local authorities, AER made comments on technical aspects of the policy and ensured that it gets its members informed and involved in a wider cooperation.

Ms Özsan Bozatli emphasized the political development in Ukraine, and warmly welcomed this week’s signature of the cooperation agreement with the European Union. AER is currently preparing seminars in Ukraine to promote the principles of regional democracy, and will continue to do so. Next action on the field: at the demand of the national government and the three regions of Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Dnipropetrovsk, AER is preparing to send experts in regionalisation to these territories in the coming month of October. In this context, President Özsan Bozatli urged the upcoming Commission to “take into account our contacts, our work and our expertise in this field.”

* Committee of the Regions, Council of European Municipalities and Regions, Association of European Border Regions, Conference of peripheral maritime regions, EUROCITIES, Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies, Conference of European Regions with Legislative Powers.

For more information: [email protected] AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Self-Government Reform in Ukraine

By

Adriana Skorupska is an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in the Eastern and South Eastern Europe Programme.
Her interests include the international cooperation of self-government, cross-border cooperation and the decentralization reforms in the Eastern Partnership Countries, especially in Georgia and Ukraine.

She published an article in the Bulletin of the Polish Institution of International Affairs in July 2014 on the “Self-Government Reform in Ukraine”.

Read the full article

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER hand in hand with its Ukrainian members and their citizens

By

Ukraine (UA), 25 April 2014

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) follows with deep concern and sorrow the developments taking place in Ukraine. What is happening there will have an impact on the future of Europe and beyond. This is the reason why DR Hande Özsan Bozatli, AER President, visited Ukraine these past days, accompanied by the Secretary General Mr Pascal Goergen. This visit was the occasion to show AER’s support and solidarity with the Ukrainian officials and people, and to see what their needs are and how AER can support them.

AER does not support separatism and military force and denounces all forms of violence. Since its creation, its main goal has been the promotion of regional democracy and pluralism of culture and society. These are the values AER wants to promote in Ukraine and beyond.

“AER has been engaged in the Eastern Partnership countries for many years, especially in Ukraine. Today, it is the Ukrainian people and citizens who have to raise their voice in order to decide on the unity and integrity of their territory”. This was the message delivered by AER President to Mr Groysman, Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine in charge of regional development.

During her meeting with Mr Tchernov, Head of the Regional Council Kharkiv and President of the Association of Ukrainian Regions, AER President stated: “Representing regions from the Azores in the far West of Europe to Tatarstan in the East, AER believes in the power of subnational democracy, promoting dialogue beyond different cultures and language backgrounds. We will put our commitment into practice, helping our member regions and Ukraine to develop regional development strategies and providing them with best practice examples from other members of the AER family”.

AER strongly supports the wish of Ukrainian regions to see the central government implement a reform of the country’s territorial organisation. Direct election of regional leaders and budgetary independence of local and regional authorities must be key in this process of regionalisation that AER is willing to accompany. This is also the message of the Dnipropetrovsk resolution, adopted by over 800 local and regional representatives meeting on 24th April in this Region, providing concrete suggestions for an effective and sustainable decentralisation.

Back from this important visit, AER President immediately wrote a letter to Commissioner Füle, with a clear message: “Our insights are relevant for the newly set up Support Group for Ukraine which you, Commissioner Füle, are coordinating. We propose to include representatives of the Assembly of European Regions as special advisers to this group in order to bring in the regional perspective on Ukrainian needs and challenges. In the current situation we have to bring all forces together in order to built up and support strong institutions on all levels of governance.”

For more information: [email protected] 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