Assembly of European Regions

Connecting regions, inspiring Europe since 1985

You are here: Home / Archives for R20

This tag is for all posts relating to R20.

Regionalisation in Czech Republic: between independent and delegated competences #RoR2017

By

The Czech Republic is a country located in central Europe. It comprises the historical provinces of Bohemia and Moravia as well as the southern tip of Silesia, which are collectively often called the Czech Lands. At the end of the World War I, with the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the state of Czechoslovakia was established. The democratic and post-communist Czechoslovakian state lasted only four years (1989-1993). Indeed, on January 1, 1993, Czechs and Slovaks decided to dissolve the union of their nation-states. As the Czech Republic, the new country joined the European Union (EU) in 2004.

Regions: territorial communities of citizens

In the Czech Republic, in accordance with the law on regions, a region is considered a territorial community of citizens who have the right to self-government. At the same time, a region is a public corporation with its own property, that it administrates independently under the conditions stipulated by law and in accordance with its budget. Regional bodies include the Regional Assembly, Regional Council, President and Regional Office. The president can also set up additional bodies. Several tasks are carried out independently by regions (independent regional competence), whereas other tasks are fulfilled on behalf of the state, on the basis of delegation (delegated regional competence).

The Czech Republic is divided into 13 regions: Karlovy Vary Region, Liberec Region, Moravian- Silesian Region, The Pardubice Region, The Ústí Region, Vysočina Region, Zlín Region, South Bohemian Region, Hradec Králové Region, The Olomouc Region, The Pilsen Region, Central Bohemia Region and Southern Moravia Region. With the City of Prague, they form the fourteen greater territorial self-governing units of the State. According to EU statistics, these fourteen units are considered NUTS 3 regions.

Regional Governance

Czech regions are administrated by an elected Regional Assembly. The president of the Czech Republic declares elections to the regional assemblies at least ninety days before they are to be held. Every Czech citizen over 18 years of age with a permanent residence in the region has the right to vote. Foreign citizens permanently residing in the region’s territory have the right to vote as well. Voters can also be elected as member of the assembly.

Regional Assemblies are elected for a period of four years. Election wards correspond to the territory of each region. Only political parties, movements and coalitions can contest elections. Seats are distributed proportionately to those candidates who received at least five per cent of all valid votes. Elections to the regional assembly took place for the first time in 2000, and 33.64% of eligible voters took part in them.

Competences of the regions

Within the framework of their own creation of norms, regions issue commonly binding regional ordinances pertaining issues within the region’s independent competence. They also produce regional decrees concerning issues within the region’s delegated competence. Both types of regulations must be in accordance with the law; in addition, decrees must be in accordance with other legal regulations issued to carry out the law as well. The state can interfere in regional decisions related to independent competence only if required by the protection of the law and in ways permitted by law.

Within the framework of their independent competence, regions can submit proposals for legal regulations and to the Constitutional Court. They can issue commonly binding ordinances, co-ordinate, approve and secure territorial development programmes, approve land zoning documentation for the region’s territory, establish measures to develop regional tourism and decide on the basic transportation service in the region. In addition, they can make decisions on regional property transactions, which includes acquiring and transferring real estate, providing subsidies to civic organisations and municipalities, as well as forgiving debts.

In the Czech Republic, regions do not have autonomy in taxation, which is established by the Czech Parliament. The financing system of local administrations is continuously developing. During the first two years of the regions’ existence only a provisional resolution was in place: according to it regions were financed mainly through government subsidies, granted for specific purposes. As required by law, regions are currently in charge of the areas of regional development, highway maintenance, transportation, schooling, social care, culture and health care facilities. However, finances given to regions to cover these tasks independently have proven to be insuficient.

Association of Regions in the Czech Republic

In June 2001, one year after the regional system was put into effect, the Association of Regions in the Czech Republic was founded. It is a private interest group that aims at promoting the regions’ joint interests. All Czech regions, as well as the City of Prague, are part of it. In 2002, regions became the recipients of a portion of shared taxes, which amounted to 3.1% in 2004. The Czech Republic is currently working on a reform of public finances, which is expected to increase the portion regions receive in shared taxes. Regions are asking to change the public financing system because in its current form it does not reflect their changing competence. In addition, regions consider such system not sufficient to cover the extent of new tasks they are in charge of. Therefore, they are advocating a legislative amendment that would support sufficiently financing the performance of these new capacities.

Czech Regions and the European Union

The Czech regions are affected by the European Union legislation in many ways. Regions are currently actively connected to projects and programmes financed by EU structural funds. The Czech Republic’s share of tapped EU finances is strongly influenced by regions that have the necessary administrative capacity. Some regions have also opened a permanent office in Brussels in order to monitor ongoing regional policy decisions taken by European institutions. Taking into account the EU’s statistic methodology, the Czech Republic is also divided into 8 NUTS 2 regions: NUTS 2 Prague, NUTS 2 Central Bohemia, NUTS 2 South-West, NUTS 2 North- West, NUTS 2 North-East, NUTS 2 South-East, NUTS 2 Central Moravia and NUTS 2 Moravia- Silesia.

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 Bulgaria: reducing regional disparities #RoR2017

By

Bulgaria covered a surface area of 111,000.9 sq. km and has a population of 7,153,784 inhabitants at the end of 2015. Over the years, the administrative and territorial division of the country was subject to multiple changes, reflecting the geopolitical, demographic and territorial dynamics. The principles of local self-government and a three level territorial organisation were established with the Tarnovo Constitution (1879).

The introduced European Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics went through several stages and took the current form in 2008 with 2 NUTS 1 regions, 6 NUTS 2 regions, 28 NUTS 3 districts, 265 LAU 1 municipalities, and 5,258 LAU 2 municipalities. The formal regions were established for planning, programming, management, supply of resources, monitoring and assessment of regional development. NUTS 1 and 2 regions are not administrative and territorial units; they have no administrative structures and are not autonomous. Regional Development Councils (RDC) are set up for all 6 NUTS 2 regions, and chaired by a district governor, designated on rotation principle for 6 months. Their operational funds are allocated from the budgets of the relevant district administrations to cover the urgent needs of the council for its main functions – consulting, approval, coordination, monitoring and control of strategic planning of regional and spatial development at the NUTS 2 and 3 levels. At the national level RDCs monitor the operational programmes with an impact on the development of the region, co- financed from the EU funds. The NUTS 3 regions are administrative and territorial units and cover the territories of 28 individual districts. District Development Councils are established in each of them, chaired by the district governor and comprised of the mayors of all municipalities within the respective district, the representatives of the municipal councils, the organisations of employers and employees. Representatives of legal entities, who have an interest in the development of the district, can attend the sessions of the council in advisory capacity.

Great disparities

There is a grave disparity in social and economic development between the centre and the periphery both within the country and at regional and local levels. The North-western region is the most scarcely populated, which is mostly affected by outgoing migration ows, with the poorest economic development, high unemployment and serious social problems. The Southwestern region is the most densely populated region due to better living and employment opportunities, offered by the capital city. Similar disparities exist at the district and municipal levels.

Informal regions

The group of “informal” regions are formed by joining districts and/or municipalities, related to the specific zoning of the country or for specialised studies or programmes. First in this group are the “targeted support areas”, which pursuant to the RD Act can be differentiated in the territory of NUTS 3 regions and cover one or more neighbouring municipalities. They form the territorial base for the concentration of resources for narrowing intra-regional disparities.

Second in the informal regions group are the areas for cross-border cooperation. The priority areas are the Danube river and the Black Sea area, which are connected to the EU regional strategy for the Danube river and the Integrated Maritime Policy. This group includes also the Euroregions, established for the preservation of common cultural values and supporting social and economic cohesion. These regions have no direct political power, but have shared history, common interests and goals, developed strategic and multi-level partnerships.

Regions’ interactions and Governance

The interaction between regions and the central and local authorities in Bulgaria complies with the principles of subsidiarity. Local cooperation could be given a higher assessment at NUTS 3 and LAU 1 levels, due to the local initiatives and civil society structures supporting the cooperation.

The advantages in the field of regional policy, after the EU accession, are associated with the enhanced role of the regions, the introduction of new principles of planning and programming of regional development, and the integration of the sectoral policy priorities, which binds them to the national territory. With the introduction of a series of important, hierarchically related statutory strategic documents, some order and rhythm was established in regional and spatial planning, however a lot of work still needs to be done for institutional and expert capacity development.

The political life in the country is a result of the transition from one-party to multi-party system. The foundations of the electoral system were laid with the Tarnovo Constitution (1879). After 1989 different electoral systems were used in an attempt to find the most accurate expression of votes, to reduce the gap between voters and candidates, to reduce distortions and buying of votes, but the results were below expectations. No elections were held at the regional level. Reduced trust in political parties and voter turnout, and the political tensions in the country in recent years raised the issues of compulsory and electronic voting. The Direct Participation of Citizens in State Governance and Local Self-government Act provides the opportunity to express opinions on important national and local matters. Bulgaria is party to the EU Convention against Corruption since 2006. The legal framework in this field was subject to reform after the EU accession, and resulted in amendments to the legal and institutional framework. Although the legal framework is already finalised, in many areas its enforcement is unsatisfactory. This was confirmed by the Eurobarometer survey for the 2014 EU Anti-Corruption Report. More serious efforts and coordinated actions need to be made to eradicate corruption from different levels of government and from the NGO sector. A possible solution is to accelerate the introduction of e-government and to reduce the administrative burden of the regulations, which slow down development and create prerequisites for corruption practices. The 2015 report of Transparency International marks the approval of the National Strategy for Prevention and Combating Corruption in Bulgaria (2015–2020).

New efforts

Bulgaria is well known for its ethnic and religious tolerance. The National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Affairs was set up at the Council of Ministers as a consultative authority to support the implementation of the state ethnic and integration policy. Units with the same functions are set up at the district and municipal level. The National Roma Inclusion Strategy (2012–2020) was also developed. Currently the municipal administrations seek solutions to the problems of occupation, illegal construction, and undeveloped infrastructure, mainly through integrated plans for urban regeneration. Initiatives of NGOs also contribute to the improvement of education, living conditions and social inclusion of the Roma population. Additional efforts of the Bulgarian government the past few years were concentrated on reducing regional disparity and expanding integration, coordination and partnership in the overall regional policy.

by Vasselina Troeva

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

Council of Europe Development Bank: a trusted partner for regions

By

Investing in regions reduces social and economic disparities and promotes inclusive growth, one of the priority areas of operation for the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB). In recent years, the Bank has stepped up its cooperation with regions and municipalities in its member countries in order to lend its full support to their social investments.

The  scale  of  needs  in local infrastructure  across  the continent is  particularly  large,  given  demographic pressures and climate  change adaptation. Local governments are responsible for a quarter of all public expenditure and almost half of all public investment; however, slow and uneven recovery in public investments since 2009 has been a concern.

CEB’s recent investments in regions across Europe include revitalisation and modernisation of urban and rural infrastructure in Trnava, Slovakia; expanding education facilities in Malmö, Sweden; and improving municipal services in Tampere, Finland.

Flexible financing for local investments

With its range of flexible financial instruments, the CEB is an attractive partner for regions looking to diversify sources of funding for their public investments. The CEB is an important source of long-term financing for social investment at local level – one quarter of CEB loans are provided directly to regional and local authorities.

In addition to project and programme loans, the CEB offers the following instruments particularly suitable to regions.

  • EU Co-financing Facility (ECF)

ECF loans allow for co-financing and/or ex-ante financing of EU-funded investment activities. They are developed in conjunction with different EU financing instruments directly supporting current EU objectives and facilitate better absorption of EU Funds in the CEB’s priority sectors.

  • Cross-sectoral loan (CSL)

The CSL provides flexibility in the use of funds for all purposes, which can be a significant advantage. This type of loan is a great match for urban renewal projects with many interdependent components that are not easily boxed into neatly defined sectors.

  • Public Sector Financing Facility (PFF)

The PFF is a financing instrument for maintaining the viability and sustainability of social investment programmes faced with a lack of funding over time.  PFF loans cover temporary financing gaps in the public sector and facilitate the continuation of investments and reform programmes, particularly in the areas of high social relevance.

How to apply for CEB financing

A loan application should include the following preliminary information:

  • Brief description of the project and its sustainability
  • Project’s financial aspects (loan amount, estimated project cost, financing plan) and implementation schedule
  • Borrower’s profile and general information

Potential borrowers include governments, local/regional authorities, public/private financial institutions or any other public/private legal entity approved by a CEB member state.

For more information on applying for a loan contact [email protected]

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

EGCT in Central Europe: example of Hungary and Poland 

By

The main objective of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), as a new legal instrument of cooperation, is to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU and the implementation of the Europe 2020 goals. Its involvement in the creation and operation of the groupings in different countries is much diversified. Despite some similarities between EGTCs established by Hungarian and Polish local governments, differences in the governments’ attitude towards the role of groupings exert considerable influence, especially concerning the number of registered EGTCs.

Euroregion and EGTC

International cooperation of local government, especially in the case of borderlands, was an important part of the European integration process after the Second World War. These bottom- up initiatives, inspired by local needs, were ahead of intergovernmental projects and regulations. The first regulations were prepared by the Council of Europe. Conventions, supplemented by model agreements, contracts and status were the basis for formalizing cooperation. Over the years, the most popular formula of cooperation became the Euroregions. Especially active were regions in Germany, France, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The first cross-border relationship – called Euregio – was created on the German-Dutch border in 1958. Cooperation through the Euroregion formula gradually spread to other countries of Western Europe, and after 1989 also to the countries of Central Europe.

Cross-border cooperation was an important part of preparation for EU membership for Central European countries. Important stimulators also included pre-accession funds used to exchange experience, for infrastructure projects and to support the development of tourism. The first Euroregion with the participation of Polish local governments was established in 1991. Two years later, the Carpathian Euroregion was launched in Hungary. It was formed by representatives of the regional administration of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine (…).

EGTC- Poland and Hungary

Despite many differences between EGTCs created with Polish and Hungarian local governments, there are also some similarities. Both countries present traditions of cross border cooperation. The Euroregional cooperation and twin city relations were developed after the system transformation during the 1990. In both countries the local/regional government or its association participates in this form of cooperation. Similarities are also found in the main objectives. They focus on quite traditional cross-border initiatives related to territorial cohesion, regional development, culture, tourism and transport. Many of them emerged from informal cooperation platforms or Euroregions structures.

by Adriana SKORUPSKA

Follow her on Twitter @AdaSkorupska 

Adrianna Skorupska is an analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in the Eastern Europe Programme. Her interests include international cooperation of local government and cross-border cooperation. 

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.

Photo by Serhii Pererva on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER and R20 contribute to the One Planet Summit success through major announcement

By

AER and R20 take big steps forward!

A joint venture aiming to generate a large volume of bankable projects from African sub-national authorities was announced today in Paris.

The joint venture involves the Assembly of European Regions (AER), the R20, the Global Covenant of Mayors (GCoM) and the European Commission.

This grouping of actors follows on several years of partnership with the R20 and the European Commission on developing access to funding for sub-national governments, leading to promising negotiations during COP23.

Magnus Berntsson, AER and R20 President, Arnold Schwarzenegger, R20 Founder, Maroš Šefčovič, European Commission Vice President and Global Covenant Co-Chair, presented this important declaration at the One Planet Summit.

The European Commission, the R20 and the GCoM will seek synergies to support the development of bankable low carbon and climate resilient infrastructures projects that meet the Sustainable Development Goals and Paris Climate Change Agreement  which will be located in partner developing countries.

How is AER involved?

The AER will be monitoring the process in order to be ready to replicate similar funding initiatives for European regions should the African initiative prove successful.

Progress and first results will be shown at the 2018 R20 Austrian World Summit (15 May, Vienna-AT) and the Global Climate Action Summit (12-14 September, San Francisco-USA). AER will present at both events and invite its members to take part in the discussions.

AER is proud to have been instrumental in making this partnership agreement possible and to be, once more, in the middle of the action!

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Cyprus: a pressing need for reform #RoR2017

By

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

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

A particular context

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

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

Local administration

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

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

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

by Constantinos Kombos assisted by Antonis Teodosiou & Ioanna Demosthenous

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Slovakia: Voice of regions on the rise #RoR2017

By

Slovakia is a parliamentary representative democratic republic governed under the Constitution of 1992. In terms of territorial administration, the Slovak Republic is divided into 8 regions (corresponding to the EU’s NUTS 3 level) and 2,890 municipalities (as of Dec. 31, 2014). The public administration is organised on three levels: state – region – municipality. Every level has its own elected officials, distributed responsibilities and liabilities. Regions of Slovakia are statistically divided according to EU territorial classification into four NUTS 2 level regions – Bratislava region, Western Slovakia, Central Slovakia and Eastern Slovakia.

Slovak public administration is of a dual nature, with relatively separate lines of local government (local and regional) and state administration (regional general state administration, specialised state administration). There is a clear-cut distinction at the regional and local level between the responsibilities of the local government and those of state administration.

Municipalities

Until 2002 there was a one-tier system of local government comprising more than 2,800 municipalities of varying sizes with the vast majority of very small municipalities. The regional government was established as of January 1, 2002. The creation of a regional tier of self government should have addressed the problem of the large proportion of small municipalities with limited professional and financial capacity capabilities to manage some public services as well as the problem of services where economies of scale and scope exist and services with catchment area exceed municipal jurisdictions.

The municipalities and regions are endowed with rule-making power. Every level (region and municipality) has its own elected officials, defined responsibilities, and tasks. The Constitution depicts the higher territorial units (which is the technical name given to the regions) as legal persons ‘which manage their own property and their financial means independently, under the conditions laid down by a law’. The Constitution lays down the basic institutional organisation of the municipalities and regions.

Regional governments

Governments in the eight Slovak regions were given powers over regional roads, territorial/ physical planning, regional development, secondary schools, hospitals, some social service facilities (retirements homes, social services for children, crises centre, orphanages, etc.), cultural facilities (galleries, museums, theatres, some libraries, etc.), and participation at civil protection, licences for pharmacies and private physicians. Regions can develop a strong trans-frontier co-operation, by the subscription of appropriate agreements, and even become a part of international associations. As far as delegated competences are concerned, the regions execute some tasks transferred from the state administration (for example, a part of the competencies in education, health system, and road transportation).

Representatives of regional governments (councillors of regional assemblies and regional presidents) are elected in direct, free, and democratic elections, which are open to political party candidates as well as independent candidates. However, regional elections typically show lower voter turnout than national and municipal elections. The first regional elections in 2001 were considered a disappointment because they drew only 26 percent of the voters. But recent regional elections in 2013 lured just 20, 1 percent of the country’s eligible voters to the ballot box.

There are sharp regional differences across Slovak regions. Regional inequality is apparent in terms of GDP per capita, employment and income indicators. The eastern regions have a much higher incidence of poverty, as economic activity is heavily concentrated in the west, particularly around the capital, Bratislava. Regional GDP per capita ranges from 186 per cent of the EU average in Bratislava to only 53% in Eastern Slovakia (2014). Regional disparities are not only substantial, but they also tend to be persistent.

Despite regional governments being responsible for the comprehensive integrative development of the region, their direct impact on economic, social and environmental development of their territories is still relatively small. The transfer of executive competences from the state administration bodies to the municipalities and regional governments in 2002-2003 was accompanied by a significant devolution of expenditure responsibilities from the centre to sub-national governments in the areas of education, social services, roads and health care, etc. As a result, the regions became an important component of the public sector and the whole economy. However, a 16.1% share of subnational government expenditure in total public spending can be still considered to be low in light of common practices in Europe. On the other hand, institutions that strengthen the region’s “voice” are arising to deal with different issues of regional development.

by Sona Kapkova

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 The Netherlands: Regional reform discussed, but limited #RoR2017

By

The current administrative structure of the Netherlands consists of three levels: central government, provinces and municipalities. The administrative set-up of the Dutch nation state has been rather stable since 1830 and changes to the territorial structure of the provinces have been marginal (as opposed to the municipal level where restructuring and merging has been a constant). Currently there are 12 provinces in the Netherlands.

The tasks and competencies of the provinces are laid down in the Dutch Constitution and in the law on provinces (the “Provinciewet”, which originates from 1850). Rules regarding provincial finances and the financial relations between the various levels of government are laid down in the “Financiële-verhoudingswet” (originating from 1897).

The Dutch provinces have tasks in many fields. Competencies in these fields are often shared with the central government and with the municipalities (and increasingly with the EU). The report analyses the fields where the provinces are considered to be a very important and in some cases the primary public actor: spatial planning, infrastructure and transport, nature conservation and environmental policies, regional economic development, regional culture and conservation of monuments, ( financial) supervision of municipalities and water boards, and rural development.

It is important to note that in the Netherlands in 2015 a large decentralization operation (“Decentralisaties social domein”) was put in motion, by which many tasks in the domain of health and social affairs, especially regarding youth care, have been shifted from the central government and provincial levels to the level of municipalities.

The members of the provincial assemblies (“Provinciale Staten”: Provincial Council) are directly elected every 4 years by the residents of their province. The parties that compete for their votes are mainly national parties, but over the last 15 years, we have seen an increase (both at the level of provinces and of municipalities) in participation by regional and local parties. The head of the province is the Commissioner of the King, who is nominated by the central government and appointed by the King. The Commissioner presides over both the Provincial Council and the Provincial Executive.

Although reform of the regional level is discussed on a regular basis, actual reform is rather limited. In 2012, the current government (Rutte-II, a liberal-socialist coalition) proposed to create 5-7 larger regions (“landsdelen”) to replace the current 12 provinces, starting with the merger of Noord-Holland, Utrecht and Flevoland into the “Noordvleugel”-province (the northern part of the Randstad). The provinces concerned were against this idea and mobilized support from the Dutch Senate. As a result, the legislative process to bring about the merger was shelved in 2014. Shortly after that, the government decided to abandon the idea of provincial mergers altogether.

by Nico Groenendijk

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 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

AER engaged in constructive dialogues at COP23!

By

This year again, AER was present at the COP meeting. As a member of the Global Taskforce made up of the key city and region networks joining forces to tackle global challenges, AER was partner to the Climate Summit of Local and Regional Leaders.

On Sunday 12 November, more than 350 political leaders from across the globe gathered in Bonn to show the world the commitment of cities and regions to fight climate change. At a time when the United States federal government wishes to leave the Paris agreement, the presence of many USA mayors and governors pledging to continue their fight against  climate change illustrated that even when States do not deliver, subnational governments are there to pick up the fight.

AER signed up to the Bonn-Fiji commitment of local and regional leaders to deliver the Paris agreement and to keep the global temperature rise well below two degrees celsius.

AER President Magnus Berntsson was invited to speak at various events during the COP to voice the determination, concerns and hopes of European regions. He specifically talked about access to finance for sustainable projects, a key issue for many cities and regions and a long-term fight for AER and the R20.

After several breakthrough : the 100 climate solutions projects campaign in the Summer 2016 which showed investors that regions have great projects to be financed ; the development of regional training to maximise access to public money via the SOURCE software ; AER and R20 are going one step further during this COP23 by announcing their progress towards setting up the first Subnational Climate Funds.

In presence of the UNFCCC and UNIDO executive secretary and as R20 President, Magnus Berntsson announced the launch of the first subnational climate fund for Africa with a goal of 350 million $ worth of blended finance for African cities and regions’ projects.

As AER President, Magnus Berntsson announced that the organisation would take the leadership on the creation of a similar fund for European cities and regions, the Subnational climate fund for Europe.

To that end, several side meetings took place between AER, the European Commission vice president for energy union, M. Maroš Šefčovič, the R20 founding chair, Arnold Schwarzenegger and a couple of other leading organisations in the field. A tight calendar of next steps has been agreed. Further announcements on the outcome of these meetings will be made in December.

Stay Tuned !

Here’s a glimpse of last year’s COP for those who need a refresher.

 

 

 

 

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

The Nordic Region: from hourglass to hourglass, or to vase? 

By

What is the status, what are the debates, what seems to happen, what should happen when it comes to regionalisation, multi-level governance and regional administrative reforms in the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden? What could we need of further policy development, further research and development activities?

There is a long tradition in all four countries to discuss the number of administrative levels and tasks and responsibilities between levels, number of municipalities, the number of counties / regions, the number of regional state agencies and the geographical structure of all this. A never ending story where the situation today is no exception.

The situation we are presenting is far from exhaustive, but will hopefully provide a fairly accurate description regarding what kind of public debates and amendments, desires and attempts for changes, that are taking place.

Our aim is to show that such regional debates take place like never before, albeit to a lesser extent in Denmark. The situation is, as it “always” has been, uncertain and dynamic when it comes to regional structure, regional responsibilities and tasks, and democratic base for the regions. We will make a presentation of the formal structure, task portfolio and responsibilities of the regional level in the four countries. At first we will give a glimpse into and reflect upon the academic and political debate that goes on. Then we will assess what may happen by changes at the regional level. We have primarily oriented us in the public debate about regional level.

by Ulla Higdem and Aksel Hagen

Dr. Ulla Higdem is educated as a planner  and a assosiated professor at the Faculty of Economy and Organisational science at Lillehammer University College in Norway. Higdem is affiliated with the Centre for innovation in services. She is currently leading the reseach group of Public Innovation Systems. Higdem is experienced in regional planning and regional development issues at national and international levels. Higdem’s research interest are in planning, partnerhips and innovation, governance and the democratic challenges of governance, foresight, action reseach and meta-governance.

Dr. Aksel Hagen is educated as a planner and works as an associated professor at the Faculty of Economy and Organisational science at Lillehammer University College in Norway.  Hagen has worked as a parliamentarian for ten years, – six years as a Deputy county Major/committee chairperson and four years as Member of Parliament, including chairing The Standing Committee on Local Government and Public Administration. Hagen’s research interest are in local and regional planning, planning as a rhetorical activity, the interaction between planning and politics, and the democratic challenges of governance. 

Follow Aksel Hagen on Twitter @AkselHagen 

To read the entire article on think EU Budget Post 2020 check out the 2017 Report.

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.

Photo by Tomasz Rynkiewicz on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Belgium: “Risk of implosion of the Belgian state is existent” #RoR2017

By

Belgium became independent in 1830. Between 1970 and 1993, the country evolved into a more efficient federal structure. This occurred through six state reforms (in 1970, 1980, 1988-89, 1993, 2001 and 2014). As a result, today, the first Article of the Belgian constitution reads: “Belgium is a federal state, composed of communities and regions”.

The leadership of the country is now in the hands of various partners, which independently exercise their authority within their territories:

  • The federal state (foreign a airs, national defence, justice, finance, social security, important parts of national health and domestic a airs);
  • The communities: the Flemish Community, the French Community and the German- speaking Community (language and culture);
  • The regions: the Flemish Region, the Brussels Capital Region and the Walloon Region (economy, employment, agriculture, water policy, housing, public works, energy, transport (except Belgian Railways and also the Brussels airport), the environment, town and country planning, nature conservation, credit, foreign trade, supervision of the provinces, communes and inter-communal utility companies).

The country is further divided into 10 provinces and 589 municipal councils.

In Belgium, even if it is really multi-polar (six federated entities), it is nonetheless felt to be bi- polar, both by the population and by those with political responsibility, because of the battle (albeit relative and peaceful) between the two groups – French speakers and Dutch speakers.

We can also consider that ‘Belgian style’ federalism is (relatively) unstable and, even, under threat. There are three main reasons behind this instability: on the one hand, the misinterpretation of ambiguous texts ; on the other hand, the transfers of competences are not uniform, creating complexity in implementation and the pursuit of new competences ; another potential difficulty is that it was believed that federalisation would lead to a calming of the appetite and desire for autonomy. Managing federal policy separately has, however, led to increased divergence between the two main communities.

Consequently, the threat of this chronic instability goes as far as the country’s federal character. Radical alternatives (often Flemish ones) have flourished: separatism, confederalism, reattachment or reunion (with France) and the inherent difficulties in making progress are at the root of these movements.

The risk of implosion of the Belgian state is existent. Certain Flemish political or cultural formations have incidentally already included this option in their agendas.

by Paul-Henri Philips

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 Denmark: Centralised, for now.

By

Denmark has been a constitutional monarchy since 1848. By the 19th century, Denmark was a centralised, absolutist kingdom. The present administrative structure was established in 2007 with the administrative reform, which merged the previous 271 municipalities to 98 and the 14 counties into 5 regions.

The only direct task of the regions is the organisation of the hospital system. They are also obliged to counsel the municipalities on spatial planning and regional development and have established so-called growth fora. Lastly, they organise regional public transportation (bus services and some non-state owned railways), in cooperation with the municipalities. Both subsidise the routes, and quite a few inter-municipal routes have been cut at municipal boundaries. The regions also have a part to play in cross-border cooperation, especially as far as the Interreg programme is concerned.

On the national level, the regions have established the association “Danske Regioner” to present the work of the regions at the national level and to negotiate with the national government. Danske Regioner also represents the Danish regions at the EU level, in cooperation with the regional representations in Brussels.

The idea of the reform in 2007 was to make administration more effective, creating sustainable units in relation to their tasks. The decision-making process was centralised top-down: the government appointed an expert commission and mediated their recommendations into a set of laws. The whole process took about two years, and there was neither considerable political nor popular opposition to the project. An example of effective policy making!

Currently, no reform of the Danish administrative structure is discussed in politics. During the last election campaign (2011), the bourgeois parties and especially the liberal party Venstre supported the dissolution of the regions. Their main argument was that the regions had not been able to manage their key task, the hospital system, effectively. They had, according to the then governing Venstre, not been able to fulfil the aims set by the state.

Therefore, the hospital system should be centralised for the whole country. The then opposing Social Democrats supported strengthening the regions and delegating more powers to them. They won the election and have since presided over a coalition government, but the structure of the administrative system has not been changed, and is not on the agenda at the present time.

The debate on the regions and their future has been purely functional. The central point has been the assurance of effective government. Regional identity, regional diversity or other aspects of regionalism have not focused on the debate.

The economic crisis has, as yet, not directly influenced the structure of Denmark’s administrative system. Budgetary issues, however, do result in political initiatives to make the public service sector cheaper. The purpose of public service efficiency will probably set administrative reform on the agenda eventually. Then, the regions, as Denmark’s intermediate and undoubtedly weakest layer of administration, could be at disposal again.

by Martin Klatt

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 Bosnia and Herzegovina: a sum of reform successes and failures

By

Understanding the current state of affairs in Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to its European integration process and regionalism is, in general, closely linked to the outcomes of EU conditionality in practice. The current situation may be observed as a sum of reform successes and failures in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

However, in order to understand the process better, one has to view the entire game from another perspective, namely to measure the variable impact of EU conditionality in terms of differentiated reforms on the entities, the cantons and Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is a much more difficult task because the focus shifted from the national level down to the regional level, but is this not what Europe is all about, the regions?

Since I proposed EU conditionality as the code cracker to understand better the state of affairs, when it comes to regionalism and Bosnia and Herzegovina, I invite you to explore together the concept of conditionality as such. I remember finding some time ago some of the best interpretations of conditionality concepts in a book called “Politics and Institutions in an Integrated Europe”, Springer Verlag Berlin – Heidelberg 1995, in which the authors Eichengreen, Frieden und von Hagen observed conditionality as a plausibility probe.

They even went further on with their thesis and argued that EU conditionality as we know it is not that young. They mentioned the 1660 Treaty of Oliva, the agreements at the Congress of Vienna and later the Congress of Berlin, the WWI negotiations at Versailles in line with other treaties that had formal terms of political conditionality for European states to recognise each other.

At the very beginning when I attempted to explain why understanding the European integration process of Bosnia and Herzegovina is linked to EU conditionality, I linked the conditionality concept to the book I read, “Politics and Institutions in an Integrated Europe.” I will now quote Eichengreen, Frieden und von Hagen as then you will understand my reasons better: “The victors of World War I (led by Woodrow Wilson) made a point of establishing that conditionality of this kind (my remark: referring to the thesis “formal terms of political conditionality” in the late 19th and early 20th century) had a practical basis as well as an established foundation of legitimacy in European history and law. “

The future of Bosnia and Herzegovina is closely linked to the future of the EU. Therefore, if we think of EU conditionality as a plausible probe, this will not take us much further in terms of European integration. However, if we think of it as a tool to promote political, economic and social changes in order to promote security among European states “without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion,” then we are getting closer to the common European values.

I argue that the lack of proper understanding of the tool of conditionality led Europe to lose its focus and commit the very same mistake that they would like to see Bosnia omit, which is “not to speak with one voice”. Due to complex government structures, the EU is forced to find a partner to unblock the EU integration wheel of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In doing so, they are forced to find partners that are not always in the state structures but in the entire structure of key players when it comes to European integration. This left space for confusion for quite a while. It is recently when the EU came up with the concept of Reforms Agenda, including all relevant levels of governance in the process in which the first serious results were achieved.

by Mujo Hadzic

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Library

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

Join AER!

Become a Member

Job Opportunities

Sign up for our Newsletter

Search

Website map