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.

Learning to play “Brussels”: regional actors and paradiplomacy in multi-level Europe

By

Decision-making in the European Union (EU) is often described as a system and process of multi-level governance. In other words, it requires actors from many levels to play a part in decision-making. Indeed, the EU is one of the main arenas in which what scholars call ‘paradiplomacy’ – diplomacy and international relations carried out by actors from regional and local levels – can be discerned. When a state becomes a member of the EU, then, the demarcation between domestic politics and foreign policy can become somewhat blurred. Exactly how blurred depends on the degree to which a given policy has been ‘Europeanised’. This changes over time, as the member states alter the balance of power by agreeing new EU treaties.

There are various divisions of competences between the EU and its member states; the EU can have exclusive competence, it can be shared with the member states, or the EU have a supporting competence to the member state, depending on what the member states have agreed to set out in the EU Treaties. Whatever the balance struck between EU and national levels, each member state has through its membership, transferred formal policy-making powers to the European Union and its decision-making institutions (the European Commission proposes legislation and the European Parliament and Council of European Union take the legislative decisions) and the advisory institutions (European Committee of the Regions and European Economic and Social Committee). Consequently, a further layer is added to the political system of each member state, and the lines between domestic and international policy and politics are blurred: what once was domestic policy, for example, health policy or transport policy, is now part of a supranational multi-level governance system, and actors at all levels needs to be both active and participating to ensure their interests are met. A further example of how the EU contributes to this blurring between domestic and international politics is its regional policy with the inclusion of partnership principle in the structural funds and the active involvement of regional actors in, for example, the INTERREG Programmes.

This has created both opportunities and challenges for domestic actors; on the one hand sub- national actors have found a potential way to by-pass the national level in politics and have used this in order to put pressure on ‘their’ national level; however, on the other hand, it has also meant that sub-national actors have had to become (more) active on the international arena, which requires extra resources and skills.

by Malin Stegmann McCallion 

Follow her on Twitter @Malainn

Dr. Malin S. McCallion is a reader in Political Science at the university of Karlstadt in Sweden. Her research interests cover the regional level in society – what role it has and how this role is changing, especially processes of Europeanisation, Multi-level Governance and Sub-state Diplomacy/Paradiplomacy.

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.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Italy: “components of the republic”

By

In Italy, regions are grounded in the Constitution, which lists them in Article 131 and identifies them in Article 114: a region is a “component” of the republic, together with the state and other territorial entities. Regions and the state share legislative powers, all the territorial entities have autonomy in finance and expenditure.

Regions can have an Ordinary Statute approved with an ordinary law (Piedmont, Lombardy, Veneto, Liguria, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany, Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, Puglia, Basilicata and Calabria) or a Special Statute approved with a constitutional law (Valle d’Aosta / Vallée d’Aoste, Trentino-Alto Adige / Südtirol, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Sardinia and Sicily). Regions with special statutes are also entitled to special conditions of autonomy according to the first paragraph of article 116. The regions are the electoral constituency for the election of the Senate, but this fact does not lead to a regional representation in the strict sense.

Reforms and regional leadership

The Constitutional Reform of 2001 produced results below expectations and landed in a framework of regional leaderships in decline in many Italian regions, often involved in scandals. Some political parties call for the overthrow of the regional system in favour of a centralized state – including the “5 Stars Movement” of Beppe Grillo (25.5% of votes in 2013), and some areas of the centre-right and centre-left parties. However, a strong alternative to the regional system is not concretely foreseen. The media and citizens also frown upon centralization of resources and decision-making at the central level, marked by serious scandals, repeated since the unification of Italy and increasingly on newspapers’ front pages. Ongoing institutional reform sees a clash between two models coming from the debate on the past reforms: the first centralist, and the second faithful to the decentralization process set out since the post-war times. The two trends coexist in the new proposal: on the one hand in favour of a Senate of the Regions, on the other hand with a depletion of regional powers, although they have never actually been transferred to the ordinary regions. The special statute regions are worried by the new reforms, although the constitutional method of bilateral agreement with the state keeps them safe from the new centralism, for the time being.

The reform process for public finances and political stability arose in a very dramatic framework, leading to President Berlusconi’s resignation on 12 November 2011, to Mario Monti’s cabinet and to political elections on 24 and 25 February 2013. In three months, the project was ready. While the parliament was laboriously looking for a majority and a new government that would be born only on 24 April with Enrico Letta, on 30 March 2013, the President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, appointed a group of experts (“The Wisemen”) to make proposals on reforms. On 11 June, the Senate started the debate on the project of constitutional law submitted by the government. However, the text was approved at first reading by the Senate on 8 August 2014, a few months after the government of Matteo Renzi took office. It is now under scrutiny at the Chamber of Deputies. Despite the short kick off in 2013, the debate has waned, making room for other urgent issues on public accounts and other structural reforms. However, the process of political reforms has been weakening recently. The opposition and some representatives of the majority do not want the removal of the “equal bicameralism”. They are also against a Senate not directly elected and with regional brand on the doorbell.

The constitutional bill changes the functioning of the institutions (legislative procedure, quorum for the election of the President of the Republic, referendum) and streamlines it (Provinces and “National Council for Economy and Labour” wind up). The most important changes are about the share of legislative powers between the state and regions, and the transformation of the Senate into a territorial Chamber with less power. The Chamber of Deputies will have the main relationship with the government (vote of confidence), the political guidance and control, and the largest part of national legislative decision-making. The Senate would be elected indirectly, with 95 members elected by regional councils among their members and the mayors of the region, while five senators will be appointed by the President of the Republic for 7 years.

The political forces agree on the revision of the legislative powers shared between the state and ordinary regions, winding up the category of shared competences, mainly transferred to the state (e.g. transport networks), and giving it new competencies, like coordination of public finance and taxation, standardization of labour rules in the public sector, and in the field of social security. The ordinary and special regions will carry on the exercise of participation in the ascending and descending phases of EU decision making process.

The constitutional reform finally introduces a “supremacy clause”, which bears out and strengthens the governmental possibility to act in the field of regional competences to preserve legal or economic unity of the Republic or the national interest. The parliamentary debate has confirmed that the special statute regions will keep their differentiated autonomy through article 116 of the Constitution. However, the special statutes of the five regions and of the two autonomous provinces will be updated according to the reform, on the basis of bilateral agreements between each of them and the state.

Further efforts to balance the state/region power

The success of the constitutional reforms depends not only on the stability and strength of the government in office but also on the country’s ability to move forward on structural reforms. Several forces hinder them: political, corporate and social; for example, on spending reviews or school reforms. Against the new bill on electoral system, they prefer a majority bonus in favour of the coalition than a single party, a direct election of the senate, and a general conservation of the status quo.

The next political steps remain difficult and the mood of the country does not help reforms. The protest expressed through political forces represents at least 40% of the votes, and 30-40% of the citizens who do not vote. Newspapers and the television do not miss a chance to despise and fault the regional texture of the Republic. The slight economic recovery of 2015-2016 could soften hearts, but it could also make structural and constitutional reforms appear less urgent.

Top decision-making officials know that the reforms do not change much the balance of power between the state and regions. The competencies of the ordinary regions will remain as residual as they are today, except in health and in local transportation. Special statute regions will remain unchanged, despite the budget cuts. Out of the vivid media debate, the constitutional reform does not seem so scary: it serves primarily to make the decision- making system faster, concentrating it primarily in the Chamber of Deputies. So, despite some resistance and perhaps some changes, the reform could be approved soon, unless the protest grows faster and the general political framework becomes entangled.

by Enrico Martial

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 Iceland: from the national level, straight to local

By

Divided in Statistical regions

Iceland is an island country located in the North Atlantic Ocean. A member of the European Free Trade Association, from March 2015 it is not anymore a candidate country to the European Union. Iceland is a unitary State and a republic with a parliamentary government. It presents two levels of administration: the national/central government and local authorities (municipalities). No regional level exists. There are regional committees based on regional cooperation between local governments, but they cannot be considered as separate units of administration. The eight landsvæði (regions) in which the country is divided are only used for statistical purposes, e.g. demography. The Icelandic statistical regions are: Capital region, Southwest, West, Westfjords, Northwest, Northeast, East and South.

Landsvæði are subdivided into 23 sýslur (counties), eight kaupstaðir (independent cities), seven bæir (towns), and five divisions of other types. The counties are further subdivided into smaller units, i.e. municipalities, which can be defined using different Icelandic generic terms. As a result of rapid social development over the last decades, improved communications, increased duties of local authorities and shifting of tasks to them, several municipalities have merged. Since the 1970s their number has decreased by almost a half. While there were 204 municipalities in Iceland in 1990, their number diminished to 76 in 2010.

Local governance

Municipalities administer local matters through an elected council. They have responsibilities in several fields, such as water supply, waste collection and treatment, electricity, street construction and maintenance, social services, primary education, town planning and building regulation, public parks and open areas, monitoring of public and environmental health, economic promotion, transport and harbours. Such tasks are entrusted to municipalities by law. They have a certain degree of flexibility in undertaking other tasks relevant to residents.

The legal status of local authorities and their relationship with the central government is defined by Article 78 of the Icelandic Constitution of 1944. It affirms that: “Local authorities shall govern their own affairs themselves as provided by law. The revenue sources of local authorities shall be determined by law, as shall their right to decide whether, and to what extent, to exploit them”. The autonomy of local authorities was confirmed on 20 November 1985, when Iceland signed The European Charter of Local Self-Government.

In addition to the Constitution, another important legal source concerning local authorities is the Local Government Act, n° 138/2011, as amended. Section 1 of Article 1 of the Local Government Act states that Iceland is divided into municipalities which govern their own a airs. Two other main legislative texts are the Local Government Elections Act n° 5/1998, as amended and the Local Government Finance Act n° 4/1995, as amended. Legislation for specific sectors such as social welfare, education and planning was also enacted.

The local authorities’ administration is exercised under central government supervision. The Ministry of the Interior ensures that decisions of local authorities conform to the law and do not include tasks that have been assigned to other bodies of law.

According to section 5 of Article 3 of the Local Government Act, local authorities shall have their own sources of revenue, and shall be autonomous in establishing fees, which are collected by their own companies and agencies in order to meet their own expenses. The local authorities’ own taxes are the real estate taxes and local income taxes. The Local Government Finance Act permits municipalities to levy them.

The Act also provides for transfer payments to local authorities through the Local Authorities’ Equalisation Fund. Article 77 of the Icelandic Constitution affirms that the tax system shall be decided by law; as a result, local authorities are not allowed to introduce new types of taxes. Icelandic local authorities’ income is mainly based on municipal income tax (63%). Various service fees account for 18% of their income and property taxes for 11%, whereas income from the Municipality Equalisation Fund accounts for 8% of total revenues.

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

AER/R20 – Training to get money for your infrastructure projects

By

Following the successful “100 climate solutions projects campaign“, an AER/R20 partnership to show the public and private financial world that regions had green projects worthwhile investing into, the R20 is now offering regions training in better projects structuring. Financiers are not only looking for interesting projects, they also need the projects to be presented in a way that stick to their frames of analysis.

This is why the World Bank and a consortium of development banks has mandated the R20 to teach regions how to use SOURCE, a dedicated software, recognised by most public financial institutions in the field of project design that has been launched by the World bank, R20 and AER in April 2017 in Washington. SOURCE is a global, standard, reliable, secured and user-friendly project preparation software, designed to maximise public sector financing options – including PPPs – by providing well-prepared projects in a consistent and transparent way to the international community of contractors, investors and lenders.

AER and R20 will offer 3 training sessions to AER members.

The first training session, to occur at the beginning of 2018 in the AER office in Brussels (date to be communicated soon), will be open in priority to the AER member regions who have contributed to the “100 climate solutions projects campaign”.

The two other sessions will be open to all AER members.

In parallel to the project identification (100 climate solutions projects campaign) and the project structuring (SOURCE training), AER and the R20 are working towards their next objectives: project bankability and projects financing. Hard work  and good progress have been done over the past months. Announcements about where we have got to will be made by Magnus Berntsson in Bonn during the COP23 Summit of Local and Regional Leaders and communicated to AER members at that time. Stay tuned!

To know more about SOURCE: brochure

Illustration: picture in Geneva

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Germany: the advantages of a federal state

By

Autonomous Länders

Germany is a federal state, composed of 16 regions (Länder). The federal structure of 1949 was designed by representatives of the already existing Länder in the Parliamentarian Council under Western Allied supervision. Some Länder could keep their traditional structures after 1945, like Bayern, Hamburg and Bremen. Others were formed out of smaller regions or were the result of the deconstruction of the former Prussian state. The federal principle is fixed in Article 20 of the Basic Law and cannot be changed (Article 79, III). The original intent was to establish a decentralised federal structure based on a strict separation of powers and own finances for each level of government, where all power is distributed to the Länder unless otherwise mentioned in the Basic Law (Article 30). But the most important policies that are mentioned are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the central state (Bund) or organised in a system of joint Bund-Länder responsibility. The Länder, as central political regions in Germany, are strong but confined to the boundaries of a centralising political culture which hasn’t changed profoundly since the previous history of the Second German Republic.

All Länder not only have full developed autonomous legislative, executive and juridical bodies, but also their own constitution. This reflects the own state character of each Land even though their constitutional regime has to be based on the principles of the Basic Law (Article 28). On the basis of Article 30 and Article 70 of the Basic Law, the following policies that effectively remain in the jurisdiction of the Länder are chiefly: culture, media, education, regional planning and inner security / police in the region. In the context of public finances, the Länder have no own autonomous tax authority. The taxes and their distribution are determined by the federal government and parliament, but only with the approval of the Bundesrat (Federal Council), the legislative chamber that represents the Länder, which is crucial in the federal legislative process.

System of financial equalisation

Another typical characteristic of the federation is the vertical and horizontal financial equalisation system. The first manages the allocation between the federal, state and the Länder as a whole; the second is an interregional mechanism between the Länder. Regarding matters of European integration, the Länder participate in addition via the Bundesrat if their sphere of responsibility is concerned (Article 23 Basic Law). As a result of the participation of the Land governments using the Bundesrat and the numerous conferences involving federal and Land officials, references are frequently made to the German system of “participatory federalism” or “executive federalism”. The interlocking system of political cooperation in Germany often gets in the way of a principle which is closely connected to regions and democracy: subsidiarity.

Governance and identity

The governments are the winners of the cooperative federalism in all of its dimensions. The party system is rather centralised and the regional divisions of all parties listen more or less to what the particular federal organisation claims. The electoral systems of the Länder are geared to the federal electoral system, the so called personalised or mixed member proportional representation, with a five percent barrier except for the national minorities. In Germany the cultural identity is quite homogenous. The traditional ethnic and respectively linguistic minorities cover only a few thousand people in a population of about 80 million (Danes, Frisians, Sorbs, Sinti and Romani). The history of the Federal Republic doesn’t know any separatism. The Länder, in contrast to the federal level, have developed different forms of direct democracy and fixed popular legislation in their constitutions.

Further collaboration

In the first years of EU regional policy the efforts of the national and regional levels on the one hand and of the European level on the other hand proceeded in parallel. Today, they are more linked to improve the situation in indigent regions. The Länder actually take part in 14 cross- border programs, five transnational programs and via REGLEG, a political network of regions with legislative power.

A central aspect of German federalism which needs to be reformed in the next years is the rearrangement of financial relations between Bund and Länder. Further issues would be a new form of cooperation in education policy, a better and clearer allocation of competences, and again the question of reshaping the Länder. Nevertheless, the strategies of the Länder in European politics in general will remain principally the same. Four paths can be distinguished finally: the further development of intra-state participation rights, especially by the Bundesrat, the collaboration in the Committee of Regions, a discrete “Länder foreign policy”, the defence of the Länder autonomy and the principle of subsidiarity.

by  Jan Grasnick

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Hungary: once again a centralised country

By

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

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

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

by Ilona PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Ukraine: lead by local communities

By

Centralised governance inherited from the Soviet times

Ukraine is part of the Eastern Partnership, which is an initiative that enables closer political, economic and cultural relations among the EU, its member states and 6 eastern European partners. Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. For almost seventy years Ukraine had been under Soviet rule, which was guided by the Soviet system of governance based on a centralised structure. In fact, the current administrative and territorial structure has not changed greatly since independence in 1991; the “current spatial division reflects political principles of territorial organisation inherited from Soviet times,” even though Ukraine ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 19933.

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

New priorities: regional & local policy reforms

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

Different level of local governance

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

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

Sub-national government = central government?

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

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

by Susannah GO

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

My internship at AER: an insight into European regional cooperation

By

This week, was Lou-Anne’s last week as an intern at the Assembly of European Regions’ Strasbourg Office. This in an opportunity to get a special insight on AER’s work and recent achievements.

“My internship as part of the Assembly of Regions was full of unexpected experiences! So many things happened and I enjoyed every bit of it. First the General Assembly in Lower Austria and finally the Autumn plenaries, important events that need organisation, coordination and communication.

For me, it was a great opportunity to see an organisation at work, so close to its members, always alert to provide all the support regions need. Additionally, I got to know how regional and interregional cooperation in Europe is effectively achieved, how regions get together and what they can actually do together. So many actions, sharing experience and projects are ongoing, I could have never imagined such exhilarating activities! More importantly, I learned how the roles of regional and local governments are truly important. Not only at the national level but also at the international level.

Let’s take Climate Change for example. All the United Nations Goals and the Paris Agreement couldn’t be achieved without the will and actions of the regions! They are the ones closest to the citizens, to territorial realities, better fit to act for adaptation, quicker to respond to an extreme event, and with their competences in transport and infrastructure, key sectors of mitigation! I got to see how AER is actively involved in giving a voice to regions in that domain.  This, not only through the R20, which they participated in creating, but also by being present at international events such as the COPs, through the organisation of study visits in innovative regions and cooperation projects in sustainable energy policies for example.

In addition, working with the AER got me to understand how every society is linked together and how it is very important to maintain that link. Exchanging knowledge, sharing experience, swapping good practices, and networking are paramount to capacity building and progress. With innovations in media and technologies, we have every tool at our hands to foster cooperation and carry on our joint efforts to improve social, environmental and political conditions in Europe.

Finally, I got the chance to work with an amazing team, so thoughtful and full of joy. Every member of AER is really committed to their work and have a way to pass on their passion for European regional cooperation. Which I truly took on!

I definitely come out grown up from this experience, with all the tools I need to explore and encourage every segment of regional cooperation, that I wish to devote particularly to the protection of our environment.”

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Committee 2 Progress report 2017

By

Twice a year the members of the AER Committee on Social Policy and Public Health gather in plenary meeting. This is the opportunity to set goals for cooperation through the elaboration of a joint work programme. Progress is evaluated, achievements are celebrated and experiences shared.

Evaluating progress

During the elaboration of the work programme in London, planned activities were organised in 3 categories:

The below progress report was compiled for the autumn 2017 plenary meeting in Nancy. It gives an overview of the situation, 6 months after the adoption of the work programme.

Projects

  • Brokerage event in Partnership with ERRIN on health innovation: ongoing

After the success of the brokerage event on the green economy and innovation, we are this time proposing a new type of event in collaboration with ERRIN to stimulate project development: the Horizon 2020 Project Development Week. This 5 days event replaces the half day brokerage event on e-health initially foreseen. It will bring together 400 different regional stakeholders around a series of selected EU calls to initiate project partnerships. These events are open to your regional stakeholders, don’t hesitate to invite them to join and share project ideas!

  • Project development, Youth Mental Health: ongoing

On the occasion of the Nancy plenary meeting a project development workshop on youth mental health will be held. All regions are welcome to join!
During the Committees Plenary meetings in London, Committee 2 and Committee 3 decided to join forces for the development of a European project on youth mental health. This is the follow-up of a workshop which was held in Izmir and which identified the difficulty for young people to relate to others as a shared challenge for many very diverse regions in Europe. During the AER General Assembly a first project development meeting was held to discuss the type of focus and funding programmes.

In the context of this project development the AER Secretariat also engaged with diverse experts from organisations working on mental health and held a meeting with DG EAC on youth mental health.

  • Silver Economy Awards (SEED): ongoing

The Silver Economy Awards aim to catalyse a sustainable European digital Silver Economy movement by promoting and rewarding innovative solutions to improve the quality of life for over 50s. The Awards are the perfect opportunity to raise awareness around the lesser-known notion of the Silver Economy. They will illustrate the breadth of the consumer markets and the public spending involved and the size of the opportunities available for entrepreneurs, investors, public authorities and civil society.

This year the Silver Economy Awards replace the traditional AER Regional Innovation Award. Regions are invited to submit their innovative solutions for active healthy and happy ageing until 15 November 2017 on the SEED website. SEED runs regular webinars.

  • Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA): ongoing

The MOCHA team is led by the Imperial College London and involves 19 scientific partners from ten European countries and 30 country agents from each European Member State and EEA country. MOCHA appraises the differing models of child health that are used across Europe. The project identified gaps in knowledge, on surveillance of children’s primary care and children’s specific needs in primary care, lack of coordination of care, models of care that are not based on current child health epidemiology, and low prioritisation of children’s needs in e-health strategies. AER is a member of the Advisory Board. AER is benefitting from the connection with the MOCHA experts, which have been invited at AER events (workshop on health innovation ecosystems in Izmir, workshop on social capital for integrated care in Norrbotten) and recently shared expertise and advice for the development of the project on youth mental health led by Catalonia and Norrbotten.

  • Active and Healthy Ageing Network AHA-NET: project on reserve list

The project proposal aimed to implement a Leadership programme for the coaching and training of future reference sites. The development of a Leadership Programme for e-health innovation was agreed on by Committee 2 in 2012. Since then the methodology has been developped and ad-hoc training academies have taken place on the Silver Economy and integrated care systems. This project would have provided an ideal framework for the deployment at larger scale of this programme.

  • ACT2Bridge: project on reserve list

This project proposal aimed at facilitating knowledge flow for health research and innovation activities between EU regions. One of the main aspects was the support to health innovation ecosystems. The aims and activities of this project corresponded to needs expressed by AER members and would have offered AER regions a set of useful services.

  •  AMID project for the inclusion of migrants with disabilities: ongoing

This project is led by the European Association of Service Providers  for Persons with Disabilities and aims to improve the access to services for migrants with disabilities. AER is a partner and Valencia, Timis and Värmland are all members of the Advisory Board. The project is will provide opportunities for experience sharing and capacity building in this area for all AER members.

  • European network for harmonising self, society, and systems to facilitate integrated care, COST action proposal: project was not accepted

This project led by partners we have been working with previously aimed at pursuing the work of AER in the field of integrated care systems.

  • Project development, Social inclusion of vulnerable groups: ongoing

With views to the preparation of a project gathering regional good practices on inclusion a debate will take place on the occasion of the Committee 2 Plenary meeting. The idea with this project is to define a general approach to inclusion, helping policy makers appraise their policies and develop effective policies for inclusion.

  • Project development, Combatting isolation and social exclusion: ongoing

The region of Timis would like to develop a project to address the isolation of 2 social groups:
-orphans, who at the age of 18 find themselves without support and homeless because orphanages do not support youth after their 18th birthday.

-elderly people, who often live on their own and would need minimal support and company.

The idea is to gather good practices which have been implemented in similar contexts and to look at transferability and adaptation of such good practices.

  • Project development, Public-private cooperation for social inclusion: ongoing

In order to initiate a project  for good practices exchanges on the collaboration between regional governments and the private sector for the social inclusion of vulnerable groups, AER published an article outlining the different issues at stake. Following the publication of this article several regions have expressed interest in developping a project. In order to move ahead with the project development, a lead partner willing to take a leading role in the proposal writing needs to be identified.

  • Project development, Equal Health: tbc

Possible project (seek funding opportunities). Exchange of experiences from different programs offering parental support. At the moment this project idea would need to be further specified.

 

Good Practice Sharing

  • Committees Autumn Plenaries in Nancy: ongoing

This Autumn’s committees’ plenary will take place in Nancy, France, from the 12th to the 14th of September. The events will feature a debate on culture in the digital age, a workshop on the value of data, a workshop for the development of a project on youth mental health,  and the Committees Plenary meetings.

A discussion on Cohesion Policy and its advantages will also take place in Nancy.

  • INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform (IEPLP): ongoing

AER is a key partner of the Policy Learning Platform (PLP) which is the second action of the Interreg Europe programme established to boost EU-wide policy learning and capitalisation of practices from investments on growth and jobs. The Platform is a space for continuous learning where regional actors in Europe can tap into the know-how of experts and peers. The PLP will be present at the European Week of Regions and Cities (formerly Open Days).

  • Event on a current transversal topic: ongoing

Jean-Luc Vanraes, President of the AER Committee on Regional Development and Economy is inviting all AER members to contribute to the preparation of an event on artificial intelligence to be held in Brussels, on November 30th 2017. A debate at the Committee 1 Plenary meeting will pave the way for this event. This event, “Artificial Intelligence: are regions up to the challenge” will be organised on the same format as the event “E-health let’s find a common language” which took place in December 2016 with the contribution of very diverse stakeholders.

  • Follow up on ALEC: ongoing

The Arctic Light E-health conference is an emblematic example of a succesful cooperation between an AER member region and the AER network. The workshop on data of the AER e-health network will follow-up on issues addressed during the conference. Articles elaborating on topics of the ALEC conference, which are of specific interest to AER members will be published in the coming months.

  • Healthcare without harm: tbc

The idea which was presented on the occasion of the Committe 2 Plenary meeting was to combine the topics of healthcare and environment. Activities have not yet been specified and can range from the publication of articles on the AER website showcasing good practices to the organisation of a mutual learning event (online webinar, workshop in Brussels or on the occasion of another AER event). Any such activity needs to be lead by an AER region and supported by a few others.

  • Equal opportunities: tbc

Members were interested in sharing experience through articles on the AER website, exchange of good practices, and the sharing of regional data. Members interested in doing so can get support from the AER Secretariat.

AER AT THE EUROPEAN WEEK OF CITIES AND REGIONS

  • Workshop on the Silver Economy: ongoing

Led by the SEED consortium. This workshop will take its participants through four inspiring examples of how a Silver Economy can help regions and cities to better match the needs of their ageing population while supporting local businesses and solution providers. It will be the opportunity to discuss the complementarity between these examples and the initiatives at EU level. The networking session that follows will bring together potential partners around issues related to the Silver Economy.

  • Workshop of the INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform: ongoing

Looking for new solutions for regional policy? 2000+ institutions have already exchanged experiences through interregional cooperation. You can learn from other cities and regions and their tried-and-tested solutions. The Interreg Europe Policy Learning Platform is launching an expert-validated Good Practice Database. Visit our show-case corner, learn more and get inspired!

Lobbying

  • Cohesion Policy Activities: ongoing

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is closely following the ongoing European debates on cohesion policy, whose future is uncertain. Aiming at defending regions’ interests in this field and make their voices heard, AER has been and will continue to work intensively on this issue. The next Bureau Meeting will be held in Maastricht.

  • AER Report on Regionalisation: ongoing

More than 40 academic experts accepted to give their contribution 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.national Climate Fund to finance climate projects in European regions. In August AER met the European Investment Bank to pursue negociations.

  • AER participation in the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing: ongoing

AER is a member of the B3 Action Group on integrated care systems. In this framework AER has a commitment towards raising awareness & building capacities for integrated care systems. Participating in the EIP-AHA enables AER to connect with the right stakeholders, provide state of the art knowledge on health innovation and raise the voice of regions in European discussions on health innovation.

  • 33rd Session of the Congress Local and Regional Authorities: ongoing

AER has a partnership status with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. It sends high-level representatives to the meetings of the Congress and sits in the Chamber of Regions Bureau.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Committee 1 Progress report 2017

By

Twice a year the members of the AER Committee on Regional Development and Economy gather in plenary meeting. This is the opportunity to set goals for cooperation through the elaboration of a joint work programme. Progress is evaluated, achievements are celebrated and experiences shared.

Evaluating progress

During the elaboration of the work programme in London, planned activities were organised in 3 categories:

The below progress report was compiled for the autumn 2017 plenary meeting in Nancy. It gives an overview of the situation, 6 months after the adoption of the work programme.

Projects

  • Silver Economy Awards (SEED): ongoing

The Silver Economy Awards aim to catalyse a sustainable European digital Silver Economy movement by promoting and rewarding innovative solutions to improve the quality of life for over 50s. The Awards are the perfect opportunity to raise awareness around the lesser-known notion of the Silver Economy. They will illustrate the breadth of the consumer markets and the public spending involved and the size of the opportunities available for entrepreneurs, investors, public authorities and civil society.

This year the Silver Economy Awards replace the traditional AER Regional Innovation Award. Regions are invited to submit their innovative solutions for active healthy and happy ageing until 15 November 2017 on the SEED website. SEED runs regular webinars.

  • Brokerage event in Partnership with ERRIN on health innovation: ongoing

After the success of the brokerage event on the green economy and innovation, we are this time proposing a new type of event in collaboration with ERRIN to stimulate project development: the Horizon 2020 Project Development Week. This 5 days event will bring together 400 different regional stakeholders around a series of selected EU calls to initiate project partnerships. These events are open to your regional stakeholders, don’t hesitate to invite them to join and share project ideas!

  • Development of an environment project based on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): in progress

YRN representatives met with AER Coordinator for European Projects & Private Partnerships Agnese Pantaloni to learn about project development steps and potential funding opportunities. The YRN will work on the definition of an EU project.

  • Migrant Entrepreneur Support Scheme Against Gap of Economic System: project proposal not accepted

This project proposal aimed to share approaches and lessons learnt for migrant entrepreneurship support schemes. Migrant entrepreneurship had been raised in specific during the 2016 Spring plenary meetings in Timis. The proposal brought together public administrations, business support organizations, non-profit organisations and NGOs, educational institutions and other organisations active in the field across cities, regions and countries.

 

Good Practice Sharing

  • Committees Autumn Plenaries in Nancy: ongoing

This Autumn’s committees’ plenary will take place in Nancy, France, from the 12th to the 14th of September. The events will feature a debate on culture in the digital age, a workshop on the value of data, a workshop on transport & mobility, a workshop on life-cycle approaches and the Committees Plenary meetings.

A discussion on Cohesion Policy and its advantages will also take place in Nancy.

  • INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform (IEPLP): ongoing

AER is a key partner of the Policy Learning Platform (PLP) which is the second action of the Interreg Europe programme established to boost EU-wide policy learning and capitalisation of practices from investments on growth and jobs. The Platform is a space for continuous learning where regional actors in Europe can tap into the know-how of experts and peers. The PLP will be present at the European Week of Regions and Cities (formerly Open Days).

  • Study visit on the Energy transition: ongoing

The main focus of the study visit, which will be organised in cooperation with other interregional networks, will be the Gelders’ Energy agreement (GEA). This collaboration between local and regional industries, governments and NGOs’ in the province of Gelderland, Netherlands, has pledged for the province to become energy-neutral by 2050. It facilitates a co-creative process where initiatives, actors, and energy are integrated into society. See the event page.

  • Event on a current transversal topic: ongoing

Jean-Luc Vanraes, President of the AER Committee on Regional Development and Economy is inviting AER members to contribute to the organisation of an event on artificial intelligence to be held in Brussels, on November 30th 2017. A debate at the Committee 1 Plenary meeting will pave the way for this event. This event, “Artificial Intelligence: are regions up to the challenge” will be organised on the same format as the event “E-health let’s find a common language” which took place in December 2016 with the contribution of very diverse stakeholders.

  • Follow up on photonics: finished

On the occasion of the Timis Spring Plenaries Professor Hugo Thienpont presented the ACTPHAST programme on photonics innovation for SMEs. The information and opportunities regarding this European programme were further disseminated via the AER website. The ACTPHAST programme for photonics. See the results as at September 2017.

  • Conference on biomass: in progress

In London AER members agreed to collaborate for the organisation of a conference on Biomass in Vojvodina. The objective is to share practices and expert lectures to show the practical possibilities of production and usage of biomass in Europe, with a preview insight in the production in Vojvodina. The event also aims to awaken the interest of individual agricultural farms, agricultural cooperatives and clusters and regional and local governments.

  • Cooperation with the World Sustainable Energy Day: ongoing

On the occasion of the AER Committees plenary meetings in London, members highlighted their interest in participating to the World Sustainable Energy Days in a meaningful way. A delegation of 4 politicians from across Europe will be able to attend the World Sustainable Energy days for free on behalf of AER. This delegation will have an active representation role and is expected to participate in meetings on the spot too. How to get involved!

  • AER event on EFSI: finished

AER organised a conference on sustainable financing for regions, which presented political issues related to impact investments, green investments and long term investments. These strategic aspects of regional development are not mere tools but are part of a regional development plan, which looks at private funding to leverage public resources.  AER series on investments – Episode 1, AER series on investments – Episode 2

  • Nudging: finished

The “Towards New Urban Mobility” paper presented on the occasion of the AER Breakfast Briefing on Urban mobility in London adresses the ways in which policies are set up to change behaviour. This report argues that policy interventions sensitive to group attitudes are more likely to result in behavioural change towards transport alternatives. This includes understanding which transport alternatives are more acceptable to each group and how best to target communication.

  • Awareness raising on sustainable mobility: ongoing

AER is continuing to highlight regional good practices on sustainable mobility. In this context an AER article will be published in the Autumn 2017 edition of Revolve Magazine

  • Meeting of the AER working group on transports and mobility in Nancy: ongoing

Good practices from the host region will be presented on smart mobility and policies aimed at supporting green innovation in the field of transports. Discussion about regulatory framework, challenges for regions and opportunities for cooperation

  • Digitalisation of transports: ongoing

Promote digitalisation of transports networks both in urban and rural areas.

  • Promotion of knowledge about innovative technologies: ongoing

  • High Speed Rail: tbc

 

AER AT THE EUROPEAN WEEK OF CITIES AND REGIONS

  • Workshop on climate and energy transition: ongoing

Led by the region of Abruzzo, AER is co-organising a climate side-event during the European Week of Regions and Cities 2017.

  • Side-event on Public procurement for green innovation: tbc

How to use innovative public procurement as a tool and a changemaker in regional development towards a greener future.

  • Workshop on the Silver Economy: ongoing

Led by the SEED consortium. This workshop will take its participants through four inspiring examples of how a Silver Economy can help regions and cities to better match the needs of their ageing population while supporting local businesses and solution providers. It will be the opportunity to discuss the complementarity between these examples and the initiatives at EU level. The networking session that follows will bring together potential partners around issues related to the Silver Economy.

  • Workshop of the INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform: ongoing

Looking for new solutions for regional policy? 2000+ institutions have already exchanged experiences through interregional cooperation. You can learn from other cities and regions and their tried-and-tested solutions. The Interreg Europe Policy Learning Platform is launching an expert-validated Good Practice Database. Visit our show-case corner, learn more and get inspired!

Lobbying

  • Cohesion Policy Activities: ongoing

The Assembly of European Regions (AER) is closely following the ongoing European debates on cohesion policy, whose future is uncertain. Aiming at defending regions’ interests in this field and make their voices heard, AER has been and will continue to work intensively on this issue. The next Bureau Meeting will be held in Maastricht.

  • AER Report on Regionalisation: ongoing

More than 40 academic experts accepted to give their contribution 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.

  • COP23 Local and Regional governments Leaders´ Summit: ongoing

The Conference of the Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will take place in Bonn on 6-17 November 2017, under the presidency of the Fiji government and hosted by the UN Climate Change Secretariat. AER will actively contribute to the agenda of local and regional governments at the Conference, including the Leaders´ Summit on 12 November and associated events.

  • R20 Summit: finished

In presence of AER and R20 President, Magnus Berntsson, R20 founding chair, Arnold Schwarzenegger and all key people playing a part in climate change (private partners, NGOs, officials). R20 is a winning alliance for AER, but where do we stand?

  • Financing climate action: ongoing

AER works alongside R20, Blue Orchard and Leonardo Di Caprio Foundation to set up a 350 million $ Subnational Climate Fund to finance climate projects in European regions. In August AER met the European Investment Bank to pursue negociations.

  • 33rd Session of the Congress Local and Regional Authorities: ongoing

AER has a partnership status with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. It sends high-level representatives to the meetings of the Congress and sits in the Chamber of Regions Bureau.

  • ERDF Funding for Regional Airports & State Aid for regional airports: ongoing

AER members get regular updates from the Working Group on transports and mobility’s Regional Airports expert Roger Estefors at meetings of the group. The Nancy meeting will feature an update on the topic too.

  • Sustainable biofuels: tbc

Promote 2nd generation sustainable biofuels, for example from waste and forest resources.

  • Legislation on biogas: finished

The AER secretariat connected regions which were interested in initiating a lobbying action. Regions had diverging priorities, the connection therefore did not result in a joint action.

 

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

The rise of regional electoral democracy

By

Democratic governance in Europe has dramatically changed over the past four decades. The institutions of the European Union have accumulated important policy-making powers in areas such as the monetary and fiscal policy, agriculture and fisheries, the common market, external relations, and immigration. With the accumulation of powers at the European Union level there was a commonly felt need to give citizens a say in EU policy-making and since 1979 citizens of the EU members states can vote representatives into the European Parliament. During the last European elections of 2014, voters elected 751 members of European Parliament who represent 510 million citizens across 28 member states. A similar but often less noticed development has been a rise of electoral democracy at the regional level. Today 23 out of 37 European states hold elections for regional assemblies which rule over 423 million out of a total of 510 million citizens (83 percent). This is also a recent trend. Since 1970, no less than 18 out of these 23 states introduced regional elections and powers for regional assemblies have increased in 19, remained stable in two, and decreased in only two states (Dandoy and Schakel 2013; Schakel 2017). Regions decide upon and implement vital policies such as culture, economy, education, environment, health, hospitals, and integration. Subnational government within the European Union accounts for a third of public spending, two thirds of public investment expenditure, and more than half of public employment (Dexia 2011).

by Arjan H. Schakel 

Follow him on Twitter @AHSchakel

Dr. Arjan Schakel is the Chair of the Standing Group on Regionalism and Federalism (European Consortium of Political Research, ECPR) and Associate Director of the Bachelor European Studies (Maastricht University, Netherlands).

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 Elliott Stallion on Unsplash

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Albania: a must for EU Accession

By

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

Albania’s history of decentralisation

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

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

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

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

Last phase of decentralisation: empowering local government

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

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

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

Regional development on hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albania and the EU

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

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

by Lorena Totoni & Kristo Frasheri

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Luxembourg: municipalities reign, but are merging

By

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

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

Regional Governance

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

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

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

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

Municipalities’ functions

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

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

by Gianmartino Contu

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Latvia: narrow range of competencies, but space for change

By

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

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

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

Regional governments’ principles

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

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

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

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

The Planning regions

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

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

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

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

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

Main conclusions:

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

by Maris Pukis

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Croatia: established but uncertain

By

Regionalisation process

Croatia is a country that was developed on the contact of different geographical units (Adriatic – Dinaric – Pannonian area). The Croatian state, established in its first form since 7th C., consisted of two complementary regions: Littoral/Adriatic Croatia and Pannonian Croatia. Croatia entered the 20th century with consolidated administrative units: 8 counties (“županija”) and the City of Rijeka in the Hungarian part of AU Monarchy, 5 in the Austrian part. After WWII, during the communist rule, the scheme of regionalisation changed often and radically, with all the characteristics of confusion. In 1955 the number of districts diminished to 27, as well as the number of municipalities, to 299. Although this last scheme was finally acceptable and lasted seven years, in 1962 new regionalisation (about 110 municipalities in 8-9 communities of municipalities) was implemented.

After the Republic of Croatia entered the international community as an independent state, the traditional name for regional units (“županija”) was revived, and by law at the end of 1992, the restored regional structure was implemented. This included 21 regions – counties (“županija”) including the City of Zagreb. The EU integration influenced the development of a regional policy, impacted by EU integration; and positive effects, slowly but surely, can be seen.

New Government, economic crisis and cohesion

After the elections in 2011 took place, the new government, which changed previously in 2007, articulated the NUTS 2 scheme and in 2012 arranged with EU Commission two regions: Continental Croatia (2.9 million inhabitants), and Littoral Croatia (1.4). All Croatian counties have been proclaimed NUTS 3 regions, although ten of them do not satisfy not a sufficient number of residents (150 – 800 thousand). As basic territorial-administrative units they play the role of formal regions. The administrative cities and municipalities (558) were de ned as LAU 1 units, and the settlements (6756) as LAU 2 units.

In the conditions of a grave economic, financial and social crisis, Croatia did not manage to achieve social and economic cohesion, and the differences in GDP among NUTS 3 regions are strongly expressed. However, it is obvious that pre-accession and structural funds, technical and expert assistance, especially in regions that organized effective logistic teams, helped to achieve a noticeable development.

State of informal regions

The informal regions, as the second group of regions in Croatia, are formed on the basis of joining counties and/or municipalities, administrative cities, related to specific zoning of the country, for the purposes of specialized studies for certain programs. This group of territorial units accounts for the “targeted support areas”, which make up the first group of all Areas of Special State Care (ASSC) and Mountainous Areas, defined by the special Law 2008 (NN 86/2008 – 148/2013). Cross-border regions make up a second group of informal regions. These regions fall within the scope of cross-border cooperation. The geographic position of Croatia as part of the EU and an external border area of the EU stimulate cross-border and regional cooperation, coordination and planning. There are few initiatives elaborated upon in the country report: the Alps-Adriatic Working Community (1978), the Adriatic Euroregion (2006), the Adriatic-Ionian Region (2012), the IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme, the Danube Region (2009), the Euroregional cooperation Danube-Drava-Sava (1998), the Cross- Border Cooperation SLO-CRO: (2008), the Hungary-Croatia – IPA Cross-border Programme 2007-2013, and the South-East European Collaboration (NALAS).

A specific area of regional cooperation in Croatia covers the Croatian Islands’ Insular Parliament – the Association for Development of Croatian Islands – which unites all Croatian islands as disperse, informal units, belonging to the 7 different counties of Adriatic Croatia.

Budget for regions

Currently, there are no own budgets for the NUTS 2 regions, since they function as the coordinative territorial bodies of counties. On the other hand, NUTS 3 regions (counties) have their own budgets. The budgets are controlled from within (county assembly and county government) and from above (o ces of State Administration, Ministry of Finance, Tax and Fiscal Administration etc.). Fiscal competencies are not equalized and the power of the state is more heavily articulated. The control function of the state (government, ministries) is more than significant. However, recently the EU policy regarding regionalism has slowly become part of the regional policy in Croatia; supervision and interference by the state and its bodies, especially by the ministries, agencies, offices etc. affect the regional autonomy of counties.

Regional Governance

Political parties have a major impact on regional structure and organisation. The horizontal and vertical governance between regions and the state as well as between regions and local authorities depend on the power relations of the ruling parties and the impact of capital and other stakeholders at the regional level.

Electoral areas in Croatia mostly do not follow the administrative and territorial network of counties/regions, but they have been fixed for more than two decades.

Three referendums occurred since 1991 (on Croatia’s independence in 1991, on Croatian accession to the European Union in 2012, and on the basis of collected signatures of citizens on the constitutional definition of marriage in 2013). As in many countries, in Croatia the problem of corruption has been evident. In 2013 Croatia placed 57th among 177 countries in the world according to the fight against corruption. Croatia’s regional media, depending on whom they are managed by, can play or have a corresponding role in discussing the problematic of regionalism, regional level, autonomy etc.

Local specificities

The country is regionally rich in cultural heritage. With numerous material remains that testify to continuous human presence in all Croatian regions, a large quantity of very different and rich intangible heritage has been preserved.

The degree of tolerance and minorities’ rights are pretty high. Enjoying all general civil rights, minorities have specific rights to their language, script, cultural identity, religion, customs etc, and special rights in Parliament.

NUTS 2 regions, as well as NUTS 3 regions (counties) in Croatia are characterized by pronounced economic disparities and differences.

New reform of regionalisation in sight

A new reform of the Croatian regions, formally and informally, has been announced for almost 10 years. However, a new reform, which is often discussed in recent times as necessary to give the regions the chance to act as more independent entities at last, has been cancelled. Financial relations, respectively to balance and equalize revenue between state and counties/municipalities should be improved. Better and clearer allocation of competences (education, health, the judiciary, administration, security, customs etc.) is necessary. Despite the administrative-territorial regionalisation in 21 counties and the proclaimed power dissipation, in Croatia the polarization process continued without serious implementation of the balanced polycentric development option.

Namely, without public consensus and by using insufficient and unfounded explanations, the current Croatian government in the last two years, changed or has been trying to change existing laws to reorganize the current competencies of the regions – counties. Different functions are planned to be concentrated in only 4-5 cities. They would thus become the centres of the new, larger spatial regions. This follows the old model used in the time of socialism. Thus, 15 of the current AER member regions would lose their authorities, as well as their real regional status. They would actually become a kind of sub-region.

In comparison with other regions in Europe, maybe they will not keep their formal roles in the coming years of further regionalisation in Croatia, or maybe some of them will be reshaped or even abolished.

 

If a reduction in the number of counties is considered, it is certainly necessary to define, within the Adriatic Croatia border (NUTS II region), at least three regions: Istria-Primorje-Gorski Kotar (or Rijeka), North Dalmatia-Lika (or Zadar) and Middle-South Dalmatia (or Split). In Continental Croatia, besides the regions of largest cities Zagreb (Zagreb City, Zagreb Region) and Osijek, cities such as Slavonski Brod and Varaždin should also be recognised as regional centres.

by Damir Magas

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Library

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

Join AER!

Become a Member

Job Opportunities

Sign up for our Newsletter

Website map