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.

Thinking the EU budget post 2020

By

The need to consider the crucial role of European regions

Discussions on the post 2020 EU budget will soon be launched. Debates on the future EU budget are traditionally animated. The forthcoming discussion will not deviate from this rule. This debate will take place in a context of budget restriction, both at the national and regional level. At the same time, without an in-depth reform of the EU’s own resources system, prospect for future at the Community level will be limited.

In this constrained environment, the question of “how to spend public money in a better way” is raised in an acute way. At the EU level, the current debate on the future of the EU budget reveals that the focus is nowadays on “how to spend better together” rather than “how to spend much more together”. In this respect, there is a growing interest on the possibility of achieving efficiency gains by reinforcing the coordination of regional, national and EU spending and by adopting an aggregate vision of total public spending in the EU. In other words, to strengthen the multi-level governance of public nance in the EU appears as a mean to increase the efficiency of public expenditure.

The purpose of this paper is to show the benefits of adopting an aggregate approach to analyse public finance in the EU and to focus on the crucial role of regional level in some area policy.

by Amélie BARBIER-GAUCHARD

Follow her on Twitter @barbiergauchard

Amélie BARBIER-GAUCHARD ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor in Economics with the higher degree “Accreditation to Supervise Research » at the Faculty of Economics and Management at the University of Strasbourg. She conducts research in the BETA Research Unit (Bureau of Theoretical and Applied Economics). As expert in the multi-level governance of public finance within the EU, her research topics are economic policy, fiscal policy tools and European integration.

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 France: developed, but incomplete

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Paul ALLIÈS & Emmanuel NÉGRIER

For the full report on France, click here.

 

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

The state of regionalisation in Romania

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the full report on Romania, click here.

Summary by Gratian MIHAILESCU

 

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Estonia

By

The report gives an overview of the Estonian administrative system today and discusses the current administrative-territorial reform. Estonia is one of the smallest countries in the EU with a surface of approximately 45,000 km2 and population of 1.3 million. Furthermore, the structure of Estonian administrative system is also different from the ‘usual’ one, as Estonia has no regions. Local self-government is exercised only at the municipal level. However, there are fifteen maakond which can be translated as counties. Maakond are just administrative units of the central government. Legally, they are departments of the Ministry of Interior Affairs, as their budgets are also part of the state budget.

Historically, from the 13th to 16th century, Estonia was divided into 14 sections (provincia) based mainly on its cultural differences. After the administrative reform in 1780, Estonia was divided into counties which had also an administrative importance. Until the local government elections of 17 October 1993, a two-tier local government system was in operation in Estonia. The new Constitution adopted in 1992 introduced a single-tier local self-government: the county administration became a part of the central government and the county governor became the representative of the central government.

In addition to the formal governance of the county by the county government, the development of the county is also (but informally) governed by unions of local governments. Municipalities in Estonia may establish voluntary associations with the aim of mutual cooperation in the delivery of services and in the representation of the interests of local government at the county and state level. As there is no regional level, the cooperation between local authorities within a county is of great importance. However, there is an interesting dilemma between the county government and the union of municipalities. To make a political decision that limits the constitutional rights of people, the decision maker must have a mandate from the people. Local governments have that mandate, officially, unlike the county governor, who doesn’t. It leads to a situation where unions of local governments have more decision making power than county governors.

In 2015, Estonian government started with ’a new wave’ of administrative-territorial reform which is forecasted to conclude by 1 March 2018. This new wave foresees the county level as well as the local government level to be widely reformed. The reason for it is mainly that many of the existing counties are too small and are not e ective from a national point of view. Today the central government is facing a situation where the administrative system, based on county governments, has exhausted itself. With the reform the central government is trying to solve this problem. Even though the responsibilities of county governments have decreased tremendously for today and the deadline for reform is just around the corner, there is not clear view on how the counties should be governed and moreover, if there is a real need for a county government.

Today there are three scenarios offered for reforming the county government level. Firstly, the county governments could be abolished as their responsibilities have decreased and county governments are doubling the work of other central administrative o ces. Instead a regional o ce with four units will be established – North-, South-, West- and East-Estonia. What is interesting about this scenario is that the administrative borders of counties will not be deleted and will exist together with the ’new’ administrative borders of the four units.

Secondly, the two-tier administrative system could be re-established, which would allow county governments to have real governments that would govern the counties. This presumes that people would also start electing county councils, whose tasks are, among other things, to take decisions in uencing the whole county.

And finally, the amount of counties could decrease– from 15 to 6 – and the county governments could turn into the regional offices of the Ministry of Internal A airs. This solution is not much different from the situation Estonia has now. Furthermore, this solution helps to maintain the current situation where central parties have county governments as a beneficial place to train political after-growth.

For the full report on Estonia, click here.

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Malta

By

Malta is a centralised state and the powers that have been delegated are those to the local government. Indeed today two levels of government exist at the central and local level. Though the centre retains power, Maltese people tend to identify themselves with their locality. In every locality one finds that people tend to be proud of their hometown or village, and are willing to give their time for its improvement and its welfare. In this sense, the division of Malta into localities makes sense, because it is a division along lines that the majority of people recognise, understand, identify with and accept. That makes them more supportive and appreciative of the hard work carried out by the local government.

Malta cannot afford to be fragmented. It is simply too small. It cannot afford sixty-eight planning authorities, or sixty-eight education divisions. On the other hand, nobody understands the needs of a locality more than the people who live there. The central government does not have the means to ‘micro manage’ either. This is where local councils step in. When composed of hard working people who love their locality, they will strive to develop facilities, they will strive to ensure that the area is kept clean, that the gardens are ever- green and blossoming, that the playing fields are up to standard, that the roads are in good condition. They will also work hard to resolve the residents’ difficulties and concerns, including parking, criminality and personal safety. The Maltese central government has recognised this and tapped in to it. The results are there to be seen. In the authors’ locality for example, thanks to the local council there is a post office and a police station where before there were none, there are three public gardens where before there were only two, refuse collection works like clockwork, public talks and educational programmes are organised regularly, festivities and community events as well.

Much more would be done in all localities, if it were not for funds, or the lack of them. This is where the central government has tied the hands of local councils. They have to work within their budget, and opportunities to increase these budgets are restricted. Funds are greatly required to achieve more, in every locality. These may come, either by increasing the annual allocation, as has indeed happened year to year although money remained tight, or by changing the law to allow local councils to raise their own taxes. Ideas, dreams and aspirations are not enough, of course. Good management and discipline are a must, to counter un-bridled enthusiasm. Nor must parochialism be allowed to take root. Business plans must be well thought out, budgets adhered to, tenders awarded fairly and in a transparent manner. Mayors and councillors must be trained. The authors acknowledge the efforts in this regard on Central Government’s part, and such efforts must be sustained.

On the other hand, local councils have suffered as a result of political interference at local level. Malta’s local councillors are divided along political party lines. Although on the day-to-day level they normally get along well, when push comes to shove they will tow the party line, though this is not always the case. This may not be in the best interest of the locality, or of the residents, or possibly of the country as a whole.

Allegations are also made in the press from time to time, that the central government discriminates in favour or against certain localities, depending on the local council’s political leanings. This problem was built into the system of local councils in Malta from the very first elections. Partisan priorities, coupled with strong central government control, can present serious threats to good local governance and to the extent to which the intentions, the real meaning behind the European Charter of Local Self Governance, are respected and achieved.

Regionalism in terms of governance on Malta simply does not exist, whether in the law or in actual fact. The only reference to regional committees is in the Local Councils Act. Nor does the special attention given to Gozo make it a ‘region’. It is submitted that, Malta being so small, there is indeed no need for regionalism. The Maltese Islands, Gozo included, are small enough to be managed by the central government. Having said this, regional variations in terms of socio-economic, historical, cultural and environmental factors have long existed on the islands of Malta and Gozo. This reality is reflected in the NUTS and LAUs nomenclature identified for Malta. Though these regional variations may decline with rapid economic growth, they are as yet still present as the cases of Gozo and the Southern Harbor illustrate. This being so, regional responses of a sort are required, and are present in the Maltese setup, as has been illustrated, in order to address and alleviate regional disparities.

For the full report on Malta, click here.

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER & R20: a winning alliance for European regions

By

This week (19 June 2017) AER President Magnus Berntsson was elected R20 (regions of climate action) President by the R20 Governing Board and General Assembly.

AER and R20 have enjoyed a close relationship over the last years, leading to a smooth and almost expected result.

After many years of technical assistance to regions throughout the world to enable their green transition, R20 is now working, with the support of AER, towards becoming the leading organisation to help subnational governments finance green projects with a mixture of public and private investments. To know more about the current joint AER/R20 work see here.

After Magnus Berntsson’s election, AER Vice President Lukas Mandl and AER Secretary General Mathieu Mori took part in the first R20 Austrian World Summit  under the patronage and in the presence of Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen, of the Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern and of the R20 founding chair Arnold Schwarzenegger. This Summit was the occasion to follow up on the need to finance the green transition at subnational level. With his double hats of AER and R20 President, Magnus Berntsson had all legitimacy to defend AER’s stance for further public and private funds to be geared towards regions. Surrounded by public, private and NGO leaders the Summit was a strong step in making AER and R20 known worldwide. (To see some of the encounters of the Summit please see our Facebook page here)

All Austrian AER members were invited for free to the Summit giving the opportunity to the AER President to meet several of them for fruitful discussions.

In view of the enormous success of this first edition of the R20 Summit, please take note of the next edition which will take place in Vienna on 15th May 2018.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER & R20: where do we stand?

By

This week (19 June 2017) AER President Magnus Berntsson was elected R20 (regions of climate action) President by the R20 Governing Board and General Assembly.

AER and R20 have enjoyed a close relationship over the last years, leading to a smooth and almost expected result.

But where do we stand in our alliance with the R20 to help regions fund their green transition ?

Lately, AER has been a contributor to the R20 campaign « 100 climate solutions projects campaign » with 36 projects from AER members proposed for financing. This important step was crucial to show doubtful investors that regions had well planned projects ready for investments. Thank you again to all AER members who participated in this call and whose projects will be further considered when the venture succeeds.

(for further information on the campaign see here)

With investors reassured, it is now a second phase that opens in front of us: securing a wide range of funds from different actors in order to actually help finance these regional projects.

To that end, R20 is working on an important dedicated impact investment fund with a worldwide recognised and UN founded impact investment fund manager : Blue Orchard. This new fund, named Subnational Climate Fund aims at reaching 350 million USD to finance regional projects all across the globe. This will allow access to first loss equity parts (20% to 30%) of CAPEX of the green infrastructure projects. Such investments will then allow for securing debt from subnational and national governments as well as development banks.

In parallel, the Leonardo di Caprio Foundation is developing a 1 billion USD Planet Pledge Fund, which will allow complementary equity investment in the same portfolio of projects.

This evolution makes R20 a leading alliance of sub-national governments, private companies and finance institutions enabling the shift to the green economy.

The fight to get public and development banks as well as institutional support is underway. AER has been an instrumental driving force in helping the R20 and Blue Orchard to have access to the right people in the European Union and at the European Investment Bank. Very active in this process, AER has not been communicating much about this activity as discretion is key in this phase of the work.

Our joint AER/R20 aim is to become, more than a lobbying or exchange of best practice platform on green issues, an actual concrete action and finance nexus at regional level.

The fight continues and we count on your support in the months to come.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Brexit

By

The Brexit dilemma: redrawing the map

The vote to leave the European Union after over 40 years membership threw up some major challenges for the United Kingdom, not least for the regions. Whilst England and Wales voted out, Scotland and Northern Ireland supported “Remain”. The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has repeatedly said, “Scotland will not be taken out of the EU against its will”, but how that should come about is unclear. In the last year Scotland has been given even more autonomy especially on tax rates and welfare and has a special status amongst the four regions making up the UK which include England.

In all the population of the UK is around 65 million with just five million in Scotland, 1.8 million in Northern Ireland and just over three million in Wales. But also in England there are regional differences with London and major cities more pro-European than the urban North where job losses have ensued as a result of declining industries. With the direct election of Mayors large cities such as London, Bristol and Manchester assume greater political weight and promote their own agendas. Strong personalities characterise many of these mayoral politicians who have a chance to build up their own power base separate from that of their party. In all the United Kingdom is far more diverse than it was twenty years ago before the establishment of the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh.

Click here for the full study by Melanie Sully.

 

You can learn more about the experts on regionalisation here.

 

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Regions in Finland

By

The article describes the Finnish regions from a number of different viewpoints. It delineates the overall politico-administrative architecture of Finland in order to place the regional councils in context. Thereafter it follows a delineation of the basic characteristics of the regions, and the tasks of the Finnish regions, emphasising both their formal characteristics as well as the dynamism of conducting the tasks. Then, the endings and conclusions with challenges facing the regions in the current socio-economic development are discussed.

The political structure of Finland is formally two-fold consisting of the national and the local level of governments. Regions, however, play a role in the Finnish politico-administrative system too; they refer to geographical entities with a long historical background. Secondly, there are regional councils, which have specific tasks, but lack the independence of a political actor more involved with local governance.

The regional councils play different roles in the Finnish politico-administrative system. They deal with technical issues of land use planning, and administer the EU Structural Fund appropriations. They also represent the municipalities and coordinate, more or less, the economic and social development in the regions.

In history, there have been a number of proposals put forward on how to conduct necessary reforms in the regions. A common feature in these proposals is the strengthening of regional councils, and a shift of tasks from the national government regional agencies to the regional councils. A recent proposal, based on discussions of the regional directors, puts forward four scenarios for the future.

In scenario one, regions become a new kind of service province that gather the existing municipal federations and the government’s Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment under the control of direct democracy. The mechanism to introduce this would be general election.

In scenario two, municipalities are essentially larger than they are now and are capable of providing most of their services. Large regional councils under democratic control are responsible for regional development and the most advanced special health care and polytechnic training.

Scenario three is based on large municipalities being controlled by a strong national government. Scenario four focuses on regional councils in 2010 in a situation where no structural reforms have been achieved. Municipalities and regions just drift along, and public nance is in a state of crisis. As it was referred to at the beginning of the paper, the number of inhabitants in the northern and eastern regions is decreasing, and hence the question of balanced territorial development and the best means to achieve it are at stake as well.

Regional councils represent municipal interests. The Finnish regions represent their area and inhabitants in a multitude of ways. Their main tasks focus on spatial planning, but development and coordination are important tasks too. During recent years their role has been grow- ing. The role of the regions has to be seen from a number of angles. In order to fulfil their tasks, they have to be able to define their role in the organisational network.

In other words, we can see regions facing different challenges in order to be successful in the current political climate. Finland has in the second decade of the 2000s experienced structural changes, which have caused turmoil. Regions in Finland are municipally based organisations. In other words, they represent the integrated voice of the member municipalities, and o er a forum for them. The membership is compulsory. Large and small municipalities may look at the regional council differently based on what extent it advocates their interests.

Regional self-government is still a goal, not a reality. One decisive step towards this direction would be popular elections. One further factor undermining the need of municipal cooperation is the trend of increasing municipal size. In addition, in the spring of 2014 the Finnish government decided to reform the health care system. According to the plans there will only be five social and health care regions; however, the details of the reforms are still open to discussion. In recent years, in 2014 in particular, there have been discussions on the social and health services and their organisation. Even now, hospitals, mentally handicapped care, and vocational education, have been inter-municipal responsibilities.

The new plan is to create regions in 2019. The regions would coordinate social and health services, and decide which services and to what extent they will be produced by the local government, private enterprises and non-governmental organisations. The regional council members would be elected by the citizens.

In this sense there is a lot of scaling and rescaling going on in Finland, which probably seems to also a elect the regions and regional councils.

For the full report on Finland, see here.

_____________

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

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

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Iain DEAS & Lee PUGALIS

For the full report on the UK, see here.

 

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

#RoR2017 – This week’s focus: Regions in Austria

By

The failure of the structural reform of the federal state in 1994 has led to a standstill in reforms in Austria’s federal system. Since Austria’s accession to the EU in 1994 and its loss of competencies towards the EU, various other competencies have been transferred to the federal level, but in turn the Länder have not been compensated.

The Länder have only succeeded in improving their position with regard to the Pact of Consultation and the Pact of Stability. In addition, the restrictions concerning the competencies for civil servants of the Länder and the municipalities were lifted in 1999, paving the way for bureaucratic reform in the Länder.

Nevertheless, cooperative federalism plays an important role in Austrian federalism. Cooperation between the various levels of government takes place in the negotiations between the federal level and the conference of Land governors, sometimes including representatives of the cities and municipalities.

The procedure of regional participation in the EU decision-making works well. There are informal instruments of coordination within the executives of the Länder which allow them to react in time and to represent the Länder’s position in the working groups on the European level.

The Financial Constitution and the Fiscal Equalisation between Federation, Länder and Municipalities are lacking a bottom-up reform. Presently the Länder are reliant on transfer payments on the federal level, but it would be better to strengthen the responsibility of the Länder for their expenditures and income. Fiscal federalism could be an option, but this would need a far-reaching reform of the financial constitution, bringing more autonomy for the Land jurisdictions and more differences into Austrian federalism. Until then we cannot recognise any real drive for reforms in this direction.

For the full report on Austria, visit this page.

by Peter BUSSJÄGER

 

The story behind the report

Early 2014, as the new programming period started, the Assembly of European Regions (AER) decided to look into the role regional authorities play in European politics and in Europe in general. To what extent is the subsidiarity principle implemented in European countries? Have Regions seen their competences and influence developed in the last years? How does multilevel governance look like in the various European states? If we consider the case of EU regional policy, to what extent has the partnership principle been respected for the setting up and implementation of this key policy for European regions?

These questions have been at the heart of a first study run in 2014-2016. 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.

[maxbutton id=”28″]

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 launches its report on Regionalisation

By

Today, during AER’s General Assembly, our outgoing President launched AER’s Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

The story behind the report

Early 2014, as the new programming period started, the Assembly of European Regions (AER) decided to look into the role regional authorities play in European politics and in Europe in general. To what extent is the subsidiarity principle implemented in European countries? Have Regions seen their competences and influence developed in the last years? How does multilevel governance look like in the various European states? If we consider the case of EU regional policy, to what extent has the partnership principle been respected for the setting up and implementation of this key policy for European regions?

These questions have been at the heart of a first study run in 2014-2016. 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.

[maxbutton id=”28″]

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 starts its General Assembly in Sankt Pölten (AT)

By

We are halfway into today’s General Assembly and all reports have been given. The next step is the election of our new Presidium.

After “Ode to Joy” opened the floor for today’s event, the different committee members gave their presentations.

For more information on the day’s proceedings, visit the event page.

To follow the event on Twitter or Facebook go to #AER2017GA

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

The 100 Climate Solutions Project Campaign

By

Important issues were highlighted by local and regional leaders at the COP22 conference in Marrakech, the most urgent one: access to finance for cities and regions. To find solutions to this problem, AER participated, in June 2016, in the launch of the R20 “100 Climate Solutions Project Campaign”.

This initial launch was made possible by a grant the R20 received from the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation.

This worldwide campaign aimed to show investors that well-designed, geographically-balanced & green projects existed at subnational level. Little-to-no money is going to green projects at a subnational level partly because investors are not yet convinced that regions need help and can also deliver on high-quality projects.

AER’s role in the campaign was to identify serious regional green projects in Europe.

The campaign was much more successful than expected. Indeed, thanks to the support from numerous networks of cities and regions, and other organisations (ORU-FOGAR, ICLEI, FMDV, GIB, SALGA, TGO, ISWA, Gold Standard, ARC, BG, among others), the consortium led by R20 identified more than 650 green infrastructure projects, 36 of which came from AER member regions.

A first selection had to be made based on certain criteria, such as field of activities, objectives, expected impacts and results, CAPEX and return on investments. After an initial selection, some 400 projects were made public on the R20 website, where the project summaries can be downloaded (here).

We understand that many of you have been patiently waiting for an update on the campaign, and we thank you for your patience.

Now that we have collectively shown investors that high-quality projects exist, there is an increasing interest in investing in green projects at subnational level. The initiative is therefore going in the right direction but will not happen overnight.

AER is continuously working with its partner R20 to build an environment in which investors will help finance your projects.

 

The following positive steps have been achieved:

Training: together with the R20 we will soon be providing interested civil servants with two-day training sessions, allowing them to structure their projects in line with standards and requirements set by development banks and investors. These training sessions will also give regional projects exclusive access to the new SOURCE software to better prepare and present their projects to maximise access to international funding, including development banks, development finance institutions, private equity, pension funds, sovereign funds, etc. To know more about this please see HERE.

R20 and AER will offer such trainings during 2018. Algeria and South Africa have already benefited from such training sessions in March and April 2017.

Additionally, R20, with a number of top engineering infrastructure companies, has created dedicated Pre Investment Facilities (PIFs or project preparation facilities) on waste, renewable energy and energy efficiency. The best pre-structured projects will benefit from direct support for feasibility studies, thus fast-tracking the best projects to bankability.

Financing: AER, the European Investment Bank and the R20 are working together to facilitate access to European funds for European regions. Furthermore, an MOU has been signed between the R20 and an Impact Investment Fund Manager (Blue Orchard), to structure a first dedicated 350 Million USD fund. This fund will allow co-investment in the equity first loss junior tranche. In other words, this will allow final selected projects, among which some of the 36 European projects from AER members, to go to financial close and therefore unlock debt senior tranche, at best interest rates.

All of this may seem to be a long process, but it is the most efficient way to fast-track and develop large green infrastructure projects at sub-national level, hopefully making this business-as-usual in the coming years.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

“SOURCE” is launched in Washington

By

On Wednesday 19 April at the World Bank headquarters in Washington, AER, R20 and other allies took part in the Sustainable Infrastructure Foundation annual meeting.

The aim of the event was the launch of a global scale software that supports the preparation of high quality infrastructure projects in a transparent and efficient way. This new tool, named SOURCE, will help regions submit projects, in one recognised and standardised format by all development banks and will therefore facilitate access to finance.

AER was invited to represent subnational governments in Europe and was represented by AER vice president treasurer Magnus Berntsson. Following COP22 in Marrakech, AER was one of the main partners of R20 and the Leonardo Di Caprio foundation in their mission to identify 100 renewable energy, energy efficiency and waste management infrastructure projects around the world.

In his speech, Mr Berntsson pointed out that AER identified 36 of the targeted 100 projects from a wide variety of regions, including Italy, Portugal, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and Sweden.

This exercise of project identification was successful and attracted 36 well-designed projects in only 3 weeks in the middle of the summer. This is because regions have portfolios of green projects ready. Projects that only need to secure financing to be put into practice. On top of the 36 European projects, another 600 projects from the rest of the world were received by the R20-led coalition.

This sent a strong message to investors: strong subnational green projects do exist and await investments. To learn more about the campaign, click here.

Magnus Berntsson also declared : “European regions are diverse. Some are very well connected to Brussels and to the way that the European Investment Bank and European Commission are working. It is therefore reasonably easy for them to take advantage of pubic investment resources available for green infrastructure projects, through for instance EFSI, a part of the Junker investment plan.

However, many other regions are simply unable to invest in training their civil servants. This is part of the reason why they are doing so poorly in attracting the European funds they are entitled to. The SOURCE training that will be made available after the Washington event will help in that respect”.

The following declaration was signed by Mr Berntsson, on behalf of AER, in Washington, marking the will of subnational governments throughout the world to be considered as key and trustworthy partners to attract further green financing. Click here to see the declaration.

To learn more about the AER/R20 cooperation please click here.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Library

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

Join AER!

Become a Member

Job Opportunities

Sign up for our Newsletter

Website map