Assembly of European Regions

Connecting regions, inspiring Europe since 1985

You are here: Home / Archives for Regionalisation

This tag is for all posts relating to Regionalisation.

Regionalisation in Slovenia: regions may fill the gap between the central government and the local level #RoR2017

By

Slovenia has only one tier of sub-national government, i.e. municipalities. Currently, there are 212 municipalities. This means that there are no other tiers of government, like counties, regions etc. Some other forms of regional segmentation exist (voting, police, financial, statistical districts), but not in the form of sub-national government.

Local government prevails

According to the Local Self-Government Act (2007), municipalities perform local matters of public interest in order to meet the needs of their citizens. Specifically, municipalities manage the municipal assets and organise municipal administration, develop conditions for the economic development of the municipality, provide spatial development plans and create conditions for housing, manage and regulate local public utilities and local public services provision, provide social services, and organise local road maintenance, and fire safety etc.

Centralisation on the run

The administrative reforms in the 1990s and 2000s also involved pressures to create an intermediate tier of government, the so-called regions. The reforms began in June 2006, when the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia was amended, in order to enable the transfer of responsibilities from the central government to the second tier of sub-national government, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The main issue under consideration was that of fulfilling the existing gap between the central government and the very fragmented local level of government, where very small municipalities prevailed.

When Slovenia entered into the economic downturn in 2009, and when this downturn contributed to the mounting fiscal problems of the country, it became evident that the imposed cutback measures pushed for additional centralisation, rather than decentralisation of the country. In essence, since 2010, the debates on the possible introduction of the regions in Slovenia practically do not exist anymore. Similarly, the political process related to this issue has been stopped almost entirely.

New regional developments

Slovenia is a rather small country, which might limit the necessity to create an intermediate level of government. The historical evidence indicates that regions and regional affiliation existed and prevailed until the early 20th century, when the unification of the territory was established. The presented evidence suggests that pressures and initiatives to introduce regions existed recently, but this top-down approach was unsuccessful. The result is that there are no regions in Slovenia yet. However, although mainly political and technical considerations prevented the introduction of regions in the previous decade, it seems that the economic downturn reversed the process during the last few years.

Nevertheless, some kind of bottom-up initiatives started to emerge recently that might in the future lead to the potential introduction of regions in the future, although the final outcome of these initiatives is hard to predict. These initiatives are concentrated mostly on boosting the joint municipal provision of certain administrative services, and measures are placed that involve cost subsidisations for this kind of service provision. Interestingly, this form of cooperation has increased rapidly in recent years, both in volume as well as in the number of municipalities involved.

by Primož PEVCIN

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Azerbaijan: a state within a state #RoR2017

By

The Republic of Azerbaijan is part of the Eastern Partnership, which is an initiative that enables closer political, economic and cultural relations among the EU, its member states and 6 eastern European partners. Azerbaijan belonged to the Russian Empire until World War I, during which period the Empire was dissolved. In 1918, Azerbaijan declared independence and established itself as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. This first Muslim republic in the world only existed for two years, from 1918 to 1920, before the Soviet Army invaded Azerbaijan, which subsequently became part of the Soviet Union. Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan re-established its independence. However, despite a cease re in place since 1994, Azerbaijan has yet to resolve its conflict with Armenia over the predominantly ethnic Armenian Nagorno- Karabakh region, which declared itself independent from Azerbaijan in 1991.

The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan states that it is a presidential republic with three branches of power – the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president exercises overwhelming authority over the three branches, which demonstrates that the Azerbaijan system is a strongly centralized presidential one. In fact, although Azerbaijan’s system of governance can be considered three-tiered nominally, the local and municipal tiers are just an extension of the top tier, in which is the president is afforded the greatest authority.

A highly centralised government

The local tier of government, which is composed of Local Executive Authorities (LEA), can only be considered as such nominally, as they do not have independence and simply implement the decisions of the central government. A legal basis for this lack of decentralisation can be found in Article 124 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “heads of executive power bodies carry out executive power locally; heads of executive power bodies are appointed to their posts and dismissed by the President of the Azerbaijan Republic; the limits of authority of local executive power bodies are determined by the President of the Azerbaijan Republic”.

This lack of decentralisation can also be found in the municipal tier, as the implementation of their competences is controlled by the LEA, who are legally inclined to carry out the orders of the president of Azerbaijan, as mentioned in Article 124 of the Constitution. This same clause allows the President to define the limits of competences of the LEAs, meaning that the setting of boundaries and limits of municipal powers is subject to presidential discretion.

The European Charter on Local Self-Government

The overwhelming power of the president may seem to be limited by Articles 142-145 of the Constitution and the European Charter on Local Self-Government. Articles 142-145 of the Constitution define the key principles of local self-government including those related to municipalities and their competences. In addition, the European Charter on Local Self- Government, which was ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002, requires Azerbaijan to guarantee autonomy and exclusivity of powers to the municipalities. Nonetheless, despite the authority vested in Articles 142-145 of the Constitution and the European Charter on Local Self- Government, these clauses are not reflected in the Law on the Status of Municipalities, as municipalities cannot decide on local issues.

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic

There have been no substantial public administration reforms over the the past 25 years since Azerbaijan has gained its independence; neither municipalities nor LEA possess independence in decision-making. The only subnational authority that has self-governing powers is the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, which is a landlocked exclave of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

According to Chapter VIII of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the status of Nakhichevan is that of an autonomous state, which can define its own constitution and laws, within the framework of the Azerbaijani constitution and laws. It stipulates that “legislative power in Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is implemented by ‘Ali Majlis’ (legislature) of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic; executive power is implemented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Nakhichevan, and judicial power by the law courts of Nakhichevan”.

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has its own competences. According to Article 138 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Nakhichevan Ali Majlis is competent concerning the following: “elections to Ali Majlis of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, taxes, routes of economic development of Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, social maintenance, protection of environment, tourism, and protection of health, science, and culture”. In addition, according to Article 144, the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic has the right to establish its own taxes.

by Susannah Go

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Sweden: a strong local administration with a weaker regional level #RoR2017

By

Sweden is a unitary state with a strong central administration. There is an undisputed regional level in Sweden, the provinces (landskap), with which there is a regional identification, although they ceased to play a part in the administration of Sweden in 1634 with the introduction of the county (län). The county level has a clear role in the provision of health and welfare care in the Swedish welfare state.

It is the national government and the national parliament that set the framework for local levels of government tasks and competences – these can be found in the Local Government Act or in special regulations. The Local Government Act gives both county councils/regions and municipalities the right to form their own organisation, as long as there is a directly elected council, which is elected by the council, a board or an executive.

A strong local administration

There has been a tendency to move the majority of tasks from the central to the municipal level, and impose upon the municipalities certain new tasks – for example within areas of childcare, education, and the environment. The relationship between the central government and local levels of government in Sweden is characterised by a fairly high level of mutual trust and understanding. For example, the national parliament and government rely on local governments to implement national welfare policies without excessive control and local governments expect to be involved at an early stage in the decision-making process when changes a ecting their activities are considered (CoR 2001: 292).

The local and central (national) levels are politically strong levels, whereas the regional level is politically weaker. In Sweden there is no hierarchical relation constitutionally between municipalities, county councils, or regions. The “regional mess” within Swedish regional growth policy is the result of two interrelated problems; it is an issue of the relationship between political levels and of multiple actors. This is problematic in several aspects; for example there is the democratic and accountability aspect from a citizen’s perspective. It is not an easy task for the citizen to see ‘who’ is responsible for which part of the decision making in the policy process, nor is it possible to hold non-elected actors accountable in the same way as elected politicians.

with a weaker regional level

The regional level’s role within the Swedish administrative system has been discussed over the last five decades and it is still an on-going discussion topic. The discussion over time can be summarised as who shall do what and on what level in relation to both democratic arguments and efficiency arguments regarding regional policy/regional growth policy since its introduction in the 1960s. It has been the focus of numerous investigations and suggestions on how it should be organised and who should take responsibility has shifted between actors.

Further regional development

The Swedish administrative system is starting to change its shape. With the EU membership, a fourth political level has been added, and the waist is expanding. This expansion is seen in both the policy and institutions; and the process between these are intertwined.

The role of the region and regional development councils are closely related to that of the policy area’s regional growth policy. The waist will further expand on the 1 January 2015 with 6 new regions. However, how and whether this will affect the policy area or if the other counties will change and become regions is unsure.

by Malin STEGMANN McCALLION

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Portugal: the need to reform the sub-national government #RoR2017

By

The transition from the authoritarian political regime to the II Republic, in 1974, marked a change in the national territory and in the nature of sub-national government in Portugal. During the period of the authoritarian regime (1926-1974), sub-national tiers of government were strictly controlled by central government. There was no direct and free election for the local boards and the local administration had no financial autonomy.

This situation changed with the democratic Constitution of 1976, when a local self-government system was formally implemented. The Constitution introduced a new system of sub-national self-government, with three tiers – administrative regions, municipalities and parishes – all of them with directly elected boards and with politico-administrative and financial autonomy.

In the case of Azores and Madeira, the Constitution opted for a model of regional political autonomy and established an Autonomous Region in each of these two archipelagos.

Municipalities and parishes

The municipality and the parish are the only tiers of sub-national self-government that cover the entire national territory. The municipality is a very old form of local administration, and the parish, although also a very old form of organisation, initially a division within the organisation of the Catholic Church, is only part of sub-national public administration since the liberal period in the nineteenth century.

The 1976 Constitution adopted the then existing municipalities and parishes, 304 and 4025 respectively, inherited from the previous authoritarian regime, and de ned broad principles, similar for all three layers of local self-government. The number of municipalities reached 308 and the number of parishes 4260 in 2013, when the reform of the parishes reduced its number to 3092 units, as a result of the parish merger reform implemented by the XIX Constitutional Government, in the context of the economic adjustment program (2011-2014), signed between the Portuguese Government and the EU Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 2011, which stated on this issue the following: «central government should develop until July 2012 a consolidation plan for the reorganisation and significant reduction of the number of municipalities and parishes, in articulation with EC and IMF staff ». In practice, this plan was applied only to the parishes, a reform process that has been questioned by the political parties that support the XXI Constitutional Government formed after the legislative election of 4 October 2015.

Further reforms required

Notwithstanding the rupture with the previous authoritarian political regime, introduced by the 1976 Constitution, and in spite the various changes in the Constitution over the years, there are important aspects in the sub-national government system in Portugal that require reform.

Among other issues, two appear to be particularly essential for the strengthening of sub- national government in Portugal, both at the regional and local levels: the low proportion of public financial resources allocated to sub-national tiers of government, in particular when compared to more developed and more decentralized European countries; and the fact that the administrative region has not yet been implemented, which is against the Constitution and the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the European Regions.

by Carlos NUNES SILVA

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

Committee 2 Progress Report Spring 2018

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:

  • Projects
  • Good practice sharing
  • Advocacy/ Lobbying

The below progress report was compiled for the Spring 2018 plenary meeting in Arad. It gives an overview of the situation, a year after the adoption of the work programme. The 2018 Committee 2 work programme will be jointly developed and adopted on March 21st at the Committee 2 Plenary meeting. Activities which are still ongoing will be integrated in the 2018 work programme too if still relevant for the Committee.

Projects

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

After the success of the brokerage event on the green economy and innovation early 2017, we collaborated with ERRIN to stimulate project development. This resulted in the organisation of the Horizon 2020 Project Development Week.

  • Project development, Youth Mental Health: ongoing

On the occasion of the Nancy plenary meeting a project development workshop on youth mental health was held to further identify areas for potential collaboration on the topic of youth mental health and the desired scope for such a project. 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.

Due to difficulties in identifying a potential lead partner this activity could be refocused on good practice sharing during workshops at plenaries, webinars and or meetings in Brussels, depending on members needs and wishes. This will be defined on the occasion of the definition of the 2018 Committee 2 work programme in Arad on March 21st.

  •  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 an opportunity to raise awareness around the lesser-known notion of the Silver Economy. They 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. The first Awards Ceremony will be on May 2018 in Brussels.

SEED is a two-year project: 10/2016 to 09/2018

  • 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 also shared expertise and advice for the development of the project on youth mental health led by Catalonia and Norrbotten. The project is now in the final year where results will be published.

  • Active and Healthy Ageing Network AHA-NET: cancelled

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 developed 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 – Actions to Support Regional Ecosystems on Health Innovation Research: postponed

This project aims to encourage and increase the participation of European regions with a low level of health-related research and innovation activity in European research programmes through benchmarking and mutual learning. An increase in their R&I activity is expected to leverage health services, and thus, into social and economic benefits for these regions. Within this project AER is leading the Working Package “Benchlearning and knowledge exchange between regions”, having as one of the main objective of to support our regions to reach equivalent levels of development in the different areas.

This project has not been financed but, considering the high standard of the consortia and the good evaluation it received, it is planned to be submitted again in the forthcoming calls.

  •  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: cancelled

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. The project was not accepted.

  • Project development, Social inclusion of vulnerable groups: ongoing

With views to the preparation of a project gathering regional good practices on inclusion a debate took 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. As the topic received a lot of interest, a workshop on inclusion is foreseen on the occasion of the Committees Spring Plenaries in Arad.

  • 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.

The debate at the Autumn 2017 Committee 2 plenary showed that these issues are recurring issues in different regions. These topics will also be addressed on the occasion of the workshop on inclusion at the  Committees Spring Plenaries in Arad. The idea is to identify good practices for potential benchmarking and transfer.

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

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. As no lead partner was identified for the project development the project was canceled

  • Project development, Equal Health: cancelled

Possible project (seek funding opportunities). Exchange of experiences from different programs offering parental support. As this project idea was not further specified, the activity is cancelled.

  • DIGIT-ABLE project: planned

Building on the work previously done by AER on digitisation and inclusion, Committee 2 is leading on a project setting up a “European Platform on Vulnerable People in the Information Society”, mapping best practices and socio-economic impact of the digital empowerment of disadvantaged people.

The DIGITABLE-EU project aims to raise the knowledge about the level of digital inclusion of vulnerable people in EU countries and to trigger the sharing of knowledge and good practices in order to increase the level of digital inclusion of vulnerable people. In order to achieve this goal, this project will work on four main priorities:

  1. Networking with public authorities (national/regional/EU level), social business actors, civil society organisations, international associations focusing on improving the quality of life and social inclusion of the different vulnerabilities targeted by the project as well as digital literacy.
  2. Establishing a metrics for evaluating the quality and impact of practices for digital inclusion of vulnerable people, for the vulnerabilities covered by the project: People with disabilities; Elderly people; Marginalised young people and children (based on socio-economic status); Unemployed or those facing social problems; Migrants.
  3. Realise an interactive online catalogue of best practices, accessible via a dedicated website;
  4. Disseminate the catalogue through dedicated events

The project was submitted on September 2017 under the Horizon 2020 and it will run for 24 months. The coordinator is INSIEL SpA (Friuli Venezia Giulia – IT).

Good Practice Sharing

  • Committees Autumn Plenaries in Nancy: finished

This Autumn’s committees’ plenary took place in Nancy, France, from the 12th to the 14th of September. The events featured 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 also took place in Nancy.

  • INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform (IEPLP): finished

AER was a 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 aims to be a space for continuous learning where regional actors in Europe can tap into the know-how of experts and peers. The PLP was present at the European Week of Regions and Cities (formerly Open Days).

  • Event on a current transversal topic: finished

Jean-Luc Vanraes, President of the AER Committee on Regional Development and Economy invited AER members to contribute to the organisation of a mtual learning event on artificial intelligence held in Brussels, on November 30th 2017. A debate at the Committee 1 Plenary meeting paved the way for this event. This event, “Artificial Intelligence: are regions up to the challenge” was 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. At the event, group discussions adressed the following topics:

  1. Supporting innovation, attracting innovators
  2. The Health Revolution
  3. Culture In a Digital World
  4. Skills and Competences: racing with machines
  5. AI: Towards a Soulless World?

The event lead also to the publication of a series of articles on artificial intelligence and its implications for different policy areas.

  • 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 in Nancy followed up on issues addressed during the conference. Articles elaborating on topics of the ALEC conference, which are of specific interest to AER members should be published.

  • 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. The idea will be submitted at the Spring plenaries to identify whether this is an area where different regions would like to cooperate on.

In the meantime the AER Secretariat has connected the region of Värmland, which proposed this topic, with Diane Whitehouse, an e-health expert who has done research on this topic and whom AER members have had the opportunity to meet at the AER event on artificial intelligence.

  • 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.

This action needs to be further specified, especially in the context of the priorities the AER group on Equal Opportunities has defined for Committee 2: Health Inequalities (gender and socio- economic)

AER AT THE EUROPEAN WEEK OF CITIES AND REGIONS

  • Workshop on climate and energy transition: finished

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

  • Workshop on the Silver Economy: finished

Led by the SEED consortium. This workshop took 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 was the opportunity to discuss the complementarity between these examples and the initiatives at EU level. The networking session that followed brought together potential partners around issues related to the Silver Economy.

  • Workshop of the INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform: finished

The workshop aimed at helping regions learn from the project outputs from their peers in Europe.

 

Advocacy/ Lobbying

  • Cohesion Policy Activities: ongoing

Building on AER’s role in advocating for a strong cohesion policy, and following the adoption of a position paper on the future of cohesion policy post 2020 at the Bureau meeting in Sankt Pölten, Lower Austria (AT) on 1 June 2017, AER will continue to convene and deliver joint policy influencing work for the future cohesion policy by:

  • Holding regular debates on cohesion policy among members and between members and relevant stakeholders, such as the “Cohesion Policy: are you getting anything out of it?” debate during the AER Committees’ Autumn Plenary Meeting in Nancy on 12 September.
  • Gathering facts and figures on cohesion investments results and impact for a evidence-based advocacy.
  • Disseminating the AER position on future cohesion policy to key stakeholders and decision-makers in-country (in coordination with member regions) and in Brussels.
  • Working together with other European associations of regions, municipalities and cities and the Committee of the Regions to generate broader support for regions interests and policy proposals, including #CohesionAlliance created to demand that the EU budget after 2020 makes cohesion policy stronger, more effective, visible and available for every region in the European Union.

The Task Force on Cohesion Policy post 2020 will continue to support the work of AER in this field, providing strategic direction and oversight.

These actions aim to ensure European regions engage in the future cohesion policy discussions at regional, national and European level, and meaningfully contribute to the design and implementation of a stronger and more effective reformed policy.

  • 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.

  • 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. On 19 October, the AER President, Magnus Berntsson, took part in the 33rd Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and addressed the Chamber of Regions during the debate on “Regional Co-operation and democracy in Europe: the role of European regional associations and organisations”. At the Session, the AER and the Congress expanded their existing collaboration by signing a Joint Action Plan for 2018-2020. The document reiterates the commitment to work together on various issues of mutual interest, notably regional democracy, youth participation and cultural diversity.

 

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Committee 1 Progress Report Spring 2018

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:

  • Projects
  • Good practice sharing
  • Advocacy/ Lobbying

The below progress report was compiled for the Spring 2018 plenary meeting in Arad. It gives an overview of the situation, a year after the adoption of the work programme. The 2018 Committee 1 work programme will be jointly developed and adopted on March 21st at the Committee 1 Plenary meeting. Activities which are still ongoing will be integrated in the 2018 work programme too if still relevant for the Committee.

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 an opportunity to raise awareness around the lesser-known notion of the Silver Economy. They 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. The first Awards Ceremony will be on May 2018 in Brussels.

SEED is a two-year project: 10/2016 to 09/2018

  • ARLEM project – Capacity building for an integrated and sustainable urban development: planned

This is a joint project of the Committee of the Regions regional and local authorities focused on the Mediterranean. In this context, AER answered to the call of ARLEM – Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly in order to provide technical expertise and political support. AER expressed its interest to focus piloting actions in Turkey, Tunisia and Morocco having already implemented several actions in these geographical areas.

This project aims to reinforce the capacities of local and regional authorities from the southern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean both in terms of urban management and integrated urban development. AER will contribute in the capacity building activities as well as the organisation of regional conferences.

It is funded by the Finnish Development Agency and activities are planned for 2 years and six months

  • Citizens for Cohesion. 351 times closer to Europe: cancelled

Building on the work previously done by AER on cohesion policy (l), the regions of Catalonia (ES), South Ostrobothnia (FI), Trentino (IT) and West Slovenia, together with AER Cohesion Policy Task Force lead on a project on awareness raising. While the project received a very good evaluation it was not accepted.

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

After the success of the brokerage event on the green economy and innovation early 2017, we collaborated with ERRIN to stimulate project development. This resulted in the organisation of the Horizon 2020 Project Development Week.

  • 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. The AER Secretariat Project Unit will explore calls for projects if there is still interest in developping such a project.

  • MULTIPLE, MULTI-layer Governance PoLicy-making for the Environment: cancelled

MULTIPLE aimed to build an ecosystem of policy-support tools and methods for a more effective, efficient policy making in the field of environmental policies. Its aim was to support the entire policy cycle from issue identification to policy implementation, monitoring and evaluation by the use of open data systems. The project was not accepted.

  • Migrant Entrepreneur Support Scheme Against Gap of Economic System: cancelled

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. The project was not accepted.

  • From local to global: Connecting the Dots in the EU’s 2030 energy transition: cancelled

The theme of this project proposal was to contribute to a coherent energy transition across the EU and support progress towards a low-carbon economy in light of the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets and policy framework. The consortium was led by EURACTIV.

The AER Secretariat collected letters of support from member regions: Abruzzo (IT), Catalonia (SP), Gelderland (NL), Trentino (IT). The aim was to highlight, compare and contrast Member States’ initiatives to achieve the EU’s 2030 climate and energy targets, supporting the energy transition as well as the transition towards a competitive and low-carbon economy, by sharing information on best practice at the local level (regions, cities, towns) and the connection with global agreements. The project was submitted under the LIFE+ programme but was not accepted.

  • RAINBOW project – Raising Awareness INitiative for a Beautiful Open World: cancelled

RAINBOW aimed to transform the 2030 Agendas into policies and to launch concrete actions at local level, in order to improve the management of the territories, whilst continuing innovating and learning from one another. It focused on interdependencies between developing countries and the European Union, with focus on the neighbouring areas. ALDA was the initiator of the project. The project was not accepted

 

Good Practice Sharing

  • Committees Autumn Plenaries in Nancy: finished

This Autumn’s committees’ plenary took 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 also took place in Nancy.

  • INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform (IEPLP): finished

AER was a 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 aims to be a space for continuous learning where regional actors in Europe can tap into the know-how of experts and peers. The PLP was present at the European Week of Regions and Cities (formerly Open Days).

  • Study visit on the Energy transition: planned

The main focus of the study visit, which will take place from 17-19 April, 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: finished

Jean-Luc Vanraes, President of the AER Committee on Regional Development and Economy invited AER members to contribute to the organisation of a mtual learning event on artificial intelligence held in Brussels, on November 30th 2017. A debate at the Committee 1 Plenary meeting paved the way for this event. This event, “Artificial Intelligence: are regions up to the challenge” was 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. At the event, group discussions adressed the following topics:

  1. Supporting innovation, attracting innovators
  2. The Health Revolution
  3. Culture In a Digital World
  4. Skills and Competences: racing with machines
  5. AI: Towards a Soulless World?

The event lead also to the publication of a series of articles on artificial intelligence and its implications for different policy areas.

  • 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: finished

In London AER members agreed to collaborate for the organisation of a conference on Biomass in Vojvodina. The objective was 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 aimed to awaken the interest of individual agricultural farms, agricultural cooperatives and clusters and regional and local governments.

Partners this year were the OECD Mission in Serbia and the Central European Initiative, with expert lectures from representatives from World Bioenergy Association, State Ministries in Serbia, University in Novi Sad, the Environment Agency Austria, GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit) and KfW (German government-owned development bank, Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau).

  • Cooperation with the World Sustainable Energy Day: finished

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 AER representatives from across Europe was able to attend the World Sustainable Energy days for free on behalf of AER.

  • Workshop on Public procurement for green innovation: finished

This workshop was advertised in the AER network by Oppland and was organised in the framework of the INTERREG Sweden-Norway the Bioeconomy Region project involving 4 AER members: Hedmark, Värmland, Østfold and Oppland. It aimed to address the following questions:
• How can innovative public procurement accelerate take-up of green technologies and stimulate innovation?
• How is innovative public procurement adopted in regional and local authorities to implement bioeconomy?
• How are public authorities cooperating with clusters, SMEs, industry and companies?
• What are the greatest challenges to implementing large scale innovative public procurement?
The AER Secretariat provided support with the identification of potential speakers and connected them with the organisers.

  • Supporting members to use the TAIEX-Environmental Implementation Review : ongoing

The AER Secretariat is disseminating information about the TAIEX-EIR peer to peer learning programme and supporting members to use this programme to gain or provide knowledge on environmental policies on topics as diverse as air quality, waste management, water management, the circular economy. This programme which is relatively easy and quick to access is a good complement to activities carried out within AER and an opportunity to access support from the Commission to carry out exchnages with other regions.

  • 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 was published in the Autumn 2017 edition of Revolve Magazine.

AER Chair of the working group Martin Tollen contributed to the Smart Airports event in Germany

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

Good practices from the host region were  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 the digitalisation of transports networks both in urban and rural areas (see below as well)

  • Promotion of knowledge about innovative technologies: ongoing

The sharing of knowledge is being carried out via:

–Workshop on the digitalisation of transports & information about the European Strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS), a milestone on the path towards cooperative, connected and automated mobility (COM(2016) 766)
–cooperation with Revolve Media to highlight regional good practices in the field of transport and provide visibility to active AER members
–contribution on new mobilities & artificial intelligence at the AER event on Nov 30th “Artificial Intelligence: are regions up to the challenge?”
–New Mobility Services of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities & Communities: involvement in the European Innovation Partnership on Sustainable Cities and Communities: within the New Mobility Services initiative, AER is involved in the Action Cluster Sustainable Urban Mobility. AER Chairman of the Working Group on Transports and Mobility, Martin Tollén attended the first meeting of this Action Cluster.

The New Mobility Services initiative is a cooperation between private and public partners (quadruple helix type of cooperation, brings together companies, NGOs, research centers & universities, and policy makers). The purpose is to establish strategic partnerships between industry and European cities & regions to develop the urban systems and infrastructures of tomorrow. It is mainly focused on urban mobility. It is open for all European regions and cities to join or to send their stakeholders

AER AT THE EUROPEAN WEEK OF CITIES AND REGIONS

  • Workshop on climate and energy transition: finished

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

  • Workshop on the Silver Economy: finished

Led by the SEED consortium. This workshop took 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 was the opportunity to discuss the complementarity between these examples and the initiatives at EU level. The networking session that followed brought together potential partners around issues related to the Silver Economy.

  • Workshop of the INTERREG Europe Policy Learning Platform: finished

The workshop aimed at helping regions learn from the project outputs from their peers in Europe.

 

Advocacy/ Lobbying

  • Cohesion Policy Activities: ongoing

Building on AER’s role in advocating for a strong cohesion policy, and following the adoption of a position paper on the future of cohesion policy post 2020 at the Bureau meeting in Sankt Pölten, Lower Austria (AT) on 1 June 2017, AER will continue to convene and deliver joint policy influencing work for the future cohesion policy by:

  • Holding regular debates on cohesion policy among members and between members and relevant stakeholders, such as the “Cohesion Policy: are you getting anything out of it?” debate during the AER Committees’ Autumn Plenary Meeting in Nancy on 12 September.
  • Gathering facts and figures on cohesion investments results and impact for a evidence-based advocacy.
  • Disseminating the AER position on future cohesion policy to key stakeholders and decision-makers in-country (in coordination with member regions) and in Brussels.
  • Working together with other European associations of regions, municipalities and cities and the Committee of the Regions to generate broader support for regions interests and policy proposals, including #CohesionAlliance created to demand that the EU budget after 2020 makes cohesion policy stronger, more effective, visible and available for every region in the European Union.

The Task Force on Cohesion Policy post 2020 will continue to support the work of AER in this field, providing strategic direction and oversight.

These actions aim to ensure European regions engage in the future cohesion policy discussions at regional, national and European level, and meaningfully contribute to the design and implementation of a stronger and more effective reformed policy.

  • 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: finished

AER was a partner to the Climate Summit of Local and Regional Leadersat the UN climate change conference (COP23) held from 6 to 17 November in Bonn, Germany, under the Presidency of Fiji. The event gathered more than 330 political leaders and 1000 delegates. At the Summit, local and regional leaders adopted the Bonn-Fiji Commitment to Deliver the Paris Agreement at All Levels, a pledge that signals their commitment to bring forward a critical shift in global development.

AER also contributed to a number of other events, including:
-8th Annual Sustainable Innovation Forum, organised by UNEP and Climate Action.
-World Climate Summit 2017, organised by R20 and BlueOrchard, in collaboration with World Climate.
-Side Event
 “Mountains in motion: Climate Action in the Alps, the Carpathians and the Pyrenees”, co-organised by the Region of Abruzzo.

  • 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. AER is now providing members with privileged access to a training on the SOURCE system which allows stakeholders to access funding for their climate action.

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

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. On 19 October, the AER President, Magnus Berntsson, took part in the 33rd Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and addressed the Chamber of Regions during the debate on “Regional Co-operation and democracy in Europe: the role of European regional associations and organisations”. At the Session, the AER and the Congress expanded their existing collaboration by signing a Joint Action Plan for 2018-2020. The document reiterates the commitment to work together on various issues of mutual interest, notably regional democracy, youth participation and cultural diversity.

  • 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: finished

AER member regions have been exchanging experiences on the topic of sustainable energy for many years and developped different projects on the topic, such as for instance the MORE4NRG and R4GG projects or the global engagement with the R20

The region of Oppland is very active in AER on the topics of energy and the circular economy. In 2016 the YRN Spring Plenary was hosted by Oppland and delegates visited a recycling plant which produces biogas was also featured in the Autumn 2017 edition of Revolve Magazine as an outstanding regional good practice.
Description of the action. The region of Oppland proposed to exchange experiences on the topic of 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

Regionalisation in Norway: is the future of regions difficult to predict? #RoR2017

By

Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution and a parliamentary system where the Government (Regjering) is responsible to the parliament (Storting). The Norwegian unitary state is based upon a three-level model. The authority of the local and regional bodies is allocated from the national state according to the Local Government Act. Today Norway has 19 counties, where the capital Oslo is both a county municipality and a municipality.

County Councils

The representatives to the county council are directly elected and the elections are held every fourth year. The county councils’ tasks are mainly to exercise authority for such areas as public transport, cultural monuments and heritage, and planning, or more specifically, regional planning. They also maintain public services such as public transport and county roads, upper-secondary school, cultural activities, county libraries, and funding for cultural and sporting activities.

The county council is also required to act as ombudsman, especially for the hospitals in health services, and, not least, to be the key regional actor in politics and planning. The main sources of income of the local and county municipalities are taxes, the distribution of public national revenue, and several types of fees for public services.

Regional governance

Even though the formal structure of government is divided into a three-tier system, regional governance is complex because of what is called the new fragmentation of public bodies into several types of arm’s-length bodies from the political government. As a response to the increased fragmentation and complexity, there has been an increased emphasis on the overarching ambition to achieve comprehensive, holistic, and coordinated regional planning through deliberation with many actors from different tiers.

The county-municipalities are expected to assume an important responsibility in developing regionally differentiated policy, including targeting business development and innovation in order to reach district and regional political goals, but their funding for this purpose is limited.

Norway Regions and the EU

The EEA Agreement does not cover EU regional policy. However, Norway has, since 1996, gradually attached itself more closely with the ‘softer’ part of the EU’s regional policy, primarily through the Interreg programmes. The overall objective is to promote innovation, external and internal accessibility, sustainability, and attractive cities and regions.

Since 1996 more than 1000 projects have involved Norwegian partners. Interreg has become an integral part of the counties’ regional political work, and most Norwegian regions have established offices in Brussels.

Further regional development

Of the Scandinavian countries, it now seems to be Norway’s turn to alter the geographical structure at the local and regional levels through the merging of municipalities into larger units and the assignment of additional tasks to these new units – at least if Norway’s central government fulfills its ambitions.

Therefore, issues such as the tasks the local and regional tiers should be entrusted with, the degree of autonomy from central state control, and the geographical size of the new regions are on the agenda. The schedule for the reform is set for 2017. Thus, the regional tier is currently influx and the future for a democratically elected regional tier is difficult to predict.

by Ulla HIGDEM & Aksel HAGEN

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 Greece: are regions weak? #RoR2017

By

Regions were created in Greece in 1987 in order to respond to organisational and functional requirements of the EU structural policies. Greek regions were not the expression of historically rooted regional identities. Such identities are not particularly strong in Greece (with the exception of Crete), while all over the country local identities obviously overshadow the regional ones. Out of these Greek “Regions Programmes” only a part coincided with historical regions (in Crete, the Ionian Islands, Thessaly and Epirus).

After the establishment of second tier local governments at the level of the former prefectures (in 1994), deconcentrated state administration was re-structured at the level of the regions (in 1998), which gradually built up their own administrative machinery. Re-scaling of second tier local government at the regional level in 2010-2011 was due to the fact that prefectures proved to be too small to function as second tier local governments and, above all, too small to elaborate and implement development policies and programmes.

A unitary state structure

Although it is certainly too early to predict future dynamics of a very young (3 year old) institution, such as regional self-government in Greece, it is obvious that under the given the restrictive constitutional framework that is oriented towards a strictly unitary state structure no one can speak about “regionalisation” in Greece, but simply refer to a second tier of local government in an extremely centralist country.

The 13 Greek regions are not strong regions. They do not have autonomous or special legislative powers and they definitely cannot be classified as institutions of “regionalisation” that could be compared, for instance, to the Italian or –even less so- the Spanish experience.

Greece remains a strictly unitary state and the Greek Constitution simply recognises “two tiers of local government”. The Constitution defines that allocation of competence (both for local/regional and delegated national affairs) among different local government tiers will be regulated by national law.

Decentralisation reforms

In Greece, local government has seen a significant number of reforms enhance decentralization during the previous decades. Unprecedented economic crisis (since 2008) and especially rigid stabilization policies imposed by the troika of EU, ECB and IMF (since 2010) combined with top- down approaches seem, however, to bring the long-lasting “rise of local government” to its end. A series of laws and policy measures have drastically restricted space of discretion and initiative given to local authorities during the previous years, especially concerning financial and human resources management. Furthermore, the delegation of additional tasks to local authorities has been suspended and a wave of recentralization seems to emerge.

Despite furious opposition, a series of reforms were attempted by the Greek governments. Reforms were introduced not only in economic policy, but also in other sectors such as pensions, labor relations, higher education and public administration.

by Nikolaos-Komninos HLEPAS

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 Montenegro: not regions, but municipalities #RoR2017

By

An ancient Balkan state, Montenegro came under Ottoman control at the end of the 15th century, but became an independent kingdom from 1910 to 1918. Montenegro then joined the newly formed Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, which became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929. In 1991, 4 of the 6 Yugoslav republics declared independence, leaving Montenegro and Serbia to form a new republic in 1992, which was renamed the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro in 2003. Montenegro left the State Union in May 2006 by a popular referendum, and became an independent country once again. On 22 October 2007, the new Constitution of Montenegro was proclaimed. Montenegro became a candidate for EU accession at the end of 2010, and negotiations were opened in June 2012.

According to the current legislation, there is no administrative division of regions in Montenegro; thus, there is no decentralisation at the regional level. In fact, the constitution does not identify any entities on the regional level, although there were administrative regions in the past. The country adopted the Law on Regional Development in 2011, which introduced three statistical regions: the Coastal, Central and Northern regions. However, these regions were only established for statistical purposes with no legislative or implementing powers.

Self-government and municipalities

Despite the lack of decentralisation at the regional level, strides towards decentralisation have been made at the level of the municipalities. Currently Montenegro has 22 local self- government units and 2 urban municipalities. The local self-government units are: the Capital City of Podgorica, the Historical Capital of Cetinje, municipalities of Andrijevica, Bar, Berane, Bijelo Polje, Budva, Danilovgrad, Herceg, Novi, Kolašin, Kotor, Mojkovac, Nikšić, Petnjica, Plav, Plužine, Pljevlja, Rožaje, Šavnik, Tivat, Ulcinj and Žabljak. The urban municipalities are Golubovci and Tuzi; and they are a subdivision of the Capital City of Podgorica.

The conditions for decentralisation at the level of the municipalities in Montenegro were first established with the adoption of the Constitution in 2007. The right of local self-government is guaranteed in Article 22 of the Constitution. The Montenegrin system of local self-government is elaborated upon in Chapter 4, which identifies municipalities as the basic form of local self- government. The autonomy and financing of municipalities is specified in Articles 116 and 117 of the Constitution. Article 116 states that municipalities can constitute their own budgets, and are financed by their own resources and the state’s. Article 117 grants municipalities autonomy in carrying out their duties.

the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro

The legal framework for decentralisation also includes the Law on Local Self-Government. This law, which was adopted in 2010, outlines the specifics on the functioning of the municipalities and provides details on the structures, decision-making procedures and tasks of the municipalities. As laid out in Articles 16 and 127 to 130 of the Law on Local Self-Government, municipalities were provided with the means to form an association which represents their interests; subsequently, the Union of Municipalities of Montenegro (UOM) was formed.

The UOM is a national association of local authorities in Montenegro, which aims to develop local democracy and realize common interests of local government units, to improve organisation, work and functioning of the local government, to create conditions for developing various forms of cooperation in all areas of the local community’s work in Montenegro, and to cooperate with international organisations and local government unions. To this end, UOM is engaged in developing and improving the legal system and the position of the local government, accomplishing mutual cooperation between local governments in order to address the local population’s interests, and cooperating with international organisations of local governments and other international organisations.

Local finances

In addition to the UOM, another step towards decentralisation was taken with the Law on Local Self-Government Financing, which establishes the financial autonomy of the municipalities. According to Article 5 of this law, municipalities are partly funded by their own resources. These resources include real estate tax, surtax on personal income tax, local administrative charges, local communal charges, fees for utility equipment of construction land, fees for the use of municipal roads, fees for environmental protection, resources from the sale and rental of municipal property, income from capital (interests, stakes and shares, etc.), fines imposed in misdemeanour proceedings, revenues from concession fees for performing communal a airs and other activities, revenues collected by municipal bodies, services, and organisations through their own activities, revenues from grants and subsidies, and other revenues set by the law.

A wide range of competences

Competences of the municipalities are wide-spanning. They cover the fields of local development, urban and spatial planning at the local and regional level, construction permitting, construction land development and management, performance and development of communal affairs, maintenance of communal buildings and communal order, environmental protection, water management, agricultural land, social welfare, transport, tourism, culture and sports, investment policy, protection and rescue of the local population, and consumer protection.

by Susannah Go

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Lithuania: an ongoing debate on regional reforms #RoR2017

By

Essentially, the definition “region” in Lithuania is associated with three types of territorial units: administrative units of the state territory of higher level – counties (apskritys); ethnocultural regions; territorial units where Lithuania’s national regional policy and the European Union’s cohesion/neighbourhood policy are implemented.

Counties

After the re-establishment of independence in 1990, the country inherited the system of administrative-territorial units from the Soviet period. Established in 1960, this system was adjusted to suit the centralised government’s needs, but it was no longer suitable for a democracy. According to official documents, the administrative-territorial system in 1990- 1995 consisted of administrative-territorial units, which fell into two levels and five categories: cities of national importance (higher level), rajonai (districts) (higher level), towns of regional importance (lower level), urban-type settlements (lower level), and apylinkės (rural territories) (lower level). Administrative-territorial units of both the higher and lower levels were mostly small in terms of population. For instance, the units of the higher level with the population of 30 000 to 50 000 accounted for 42 % of the units of the higher level. It is assumed that during that period (1990 – 1995) there were no administrative-territorial units in Lithuania that could be called regions.

Since 1995 the system of administrative-territorial units in Lithuania has undergone essential changes. In 1995, 10 new administrative-territorial units of higher level, named apskritys (counties) which corresponded to the NUTS III level units, were established for the performance of state administrative functions, the implementation of national regional policy, and the absorption of support from the European Union Structural Funds and other financial instruments. Although, compared to the analogous entities in other European countries, those 10 new administrative- territorial units of the higher level were and still are relatively small; they, in particular, are called regions in Lithuania. According to the scientific classification of regions, the said regions are attributed to the group of administrative regions.

New administrative-territorial units of higher level (counties) were formed with the aim of implementing the provision of paragraph 1 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stating that: ‘At higher level administrative units, the governance shall be organised by the central government according to the procedure established by law’. Thus it was decided that such government had to be implemented mainly by state officials who were appointed by the central government for a term of four years and were responsible for it, that is to say by county governors and their subordinate state budgetary institutions (county governor’s administration). The said state officials were appointed and the said institutions were established in the spring of 1995 and operated until 1 July 2010.

County governors and their subordinate institutions were constantly criticized by state politicians and municipalities. However, the latter greatly contributed to unpopular actions and required ‘harder decisions’ in the spheres of land reform, privatization of state property, and restoration of the ownership right to the existing real property to its former owners. After 15 years of work the positions of the said state officials and their subordinate institutions were abolished as presumably having completed their mission and duplicating the activities of other public administration entities. The functions performed by them were granted to municipalities and other state administration entities (e.g. the National Land Service under the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Education and Science, etc.) or these functions were withdrawn.

County governors and their subordinate institutions as well as administrative-territorial units of higher level (counties) ‘were seen’ as the inseparable elements (i.e. counties were identified with county governors and the institutions subordinate to them). Therefore, in 2010 after the abolishment of the positions of those state officials and their subordinate institutions, it seemed to many that the administrative-territorial units of higher level (counties) were also abolished. However, even after the county reform in 2010 the counties as the administrative-territorial units of higher level continued to function.

Ethnocultural (ethnographic) regions.

Lithuania is quite homogeneous according to its ethnic composition: 85% of the population are Lithuanians (according to their nationality). However, the Lithuanian nation evolved from certain tribes and ethnic formations, which had specific cultural features: language and songs, traditions and customs, clothes, architecture, recipes, traditional way of life, etc. All this is respected in Lithuania, which tries to preserve its cultural features for future generations. Therefore, with the aim of fostering this historical cultural heritage, Lithuania is divided into five ethno-cultural regions since 1999: regions of Highland (Aukštaitija), Dainava (Dzūkija), Lithuania Minor (Mažoji Lietuva), Samogitia (Žemaitija), and Sudovia (Suvalkija). These regions’ legal conditions were created in these regions for the functioning of regional councils in order to protect the ethnic culture of the activities which are directed, coordinated and funded by the Council for the Protection of Ethnic Culture under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter: ‘the Council for the Protection of Ethnic Culture’).

Territorial units

Regions – Territorial units where the national regional policy of Lithuania is implemented. As already mentioned, the year 1995 saw the establishment of administrative-territorial units- counties (apskritys) at the NUTS III level, where not only the execution of state administration functions was planned, but also the implementation of the national regional policy (from 2000). This included targeted activities of public and other competent bodies with the aim of reducing, by applying differentiated measures, the territorial socio-economic differences between and within regions.

The Law on Regional Development adopted on 20 July 2000 clearly defines the concept of the region intended for the implementation of the national regional policy. The Law on Regional Development, which entered into force in 2002, and the part of the provisions that was amended because of the County Reform enforced on 1 July 2010, defines that the regional development council shall carry out its activities in each region – county. (It was stated that a regional development council consisted of the mayors of the region’s municipalities, delegate members of municipal councils and a person appointed by the central government or an institution authorized by it.) The regional development council does not have the status of legal person; meaning there is separate financing for carrying out its activities and the administration subordinate to it. The regional development councils are aided in performing their functions set out by the Law on Regional Development by the ten territorial branches of the Regional Development Department under the Ministry of the Interior, with 3-5 staff members each and financed with state budget appropriations.

In order to enlarge the role of the regional development councils and to increase the efficiency of their activities a new revised version of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Regional Development has been drafted and submitted to the Seimas for consideration in June 2014. The Seimas adopted this law in September 2014.

Impact of EU Neighbourhood policy and territorial cooperation programmes. Lithuanian regions (counties) classified at NUTS III level are greatly influenced by EU territorial cooperation programmes and the European Neighbourhood Policy. Lithuanian regions (counties) participate in three territorial cooperation programmes and two neighbourhood programmes.

Perspectives

Since 2008, discussions had been held in Lithuania concerning the possibility of abolishing 10 counties (apskritys) and establishing 3-5 regions intended to perform the functions related to state administration, national regional policy implementation and administration of the European Union support. The actual, practical steps were taken by the 15th Central Government (Cabinet of Ministers) in 2010 when it fulfilled the reform of the counties (apskritys). Unfortunately, the only result of that reform was the liquidation of part of the state institutions operating in the counties (apskritys). The fulfillment of the ideas to establish ‘basic regions’ (NUTS 2 level) with regional councils functioning in them (to be set up by way of delegation) and intended for administrating EU support was postponed.

However, the following features are still a matter of ongoing debate:

  1. a ‘small scale’ of administrative-territorial units of higher level – counties;
  2. the limited autonomy of regional (county) development councils functioning in the counties (the power to decide is limited, lack of a legal person status and administrations subordinate to them as well as lack of financial resources, which are administrated independently);
  3. by the year 2015 Lithuania, as a basic region classified at NUTS 2, reached a 75 percent of the GDP per capita value of the EU indicator (and therefore the procedure for calculating the amount of EU support granted to Lithuania may change);
  4. the orientation towards 3-5 administrative areas when setting up territorial entities of public administration;
  5. the good practice of other countries (e.g. Denmark and others) when establishing ‘major’ regions with the principles of democratic governance designed for the implementation of the new generation of regional policy, etc.

In 2014 during the spring session, the Committee on State Administration and Local Authorities of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania proposed to the government to prepare a conception of a revised version of the Law on Regional Development by 1 June 2015 and to submit the draft of a revised version of the Law on Regional Development and other necessary draft laws (maybe even providing for an amendment of Article 123 of the Constitution), considering the introduction of regional self-governance (in the field of regional development). However, the government rejected this proposal.

On 6 January 2016, by government resolution two additional statistical regions (corresponding to NUTS level 2) were formed: Capital region (consisting of Vilnius County) and Central-Western region (consisting of the remaining 9 counties). In January 2016, a proposal for amendments to the NUTS Regulation was presented to the European Commission. As for the determination of the investment principles in the entire territory of Lithuania and two separate NUTS level 2 statistical regions scenarios (and corresponding administrative structures), forecasts on appropriate development needs for Lithuania and investment priorities for the period after 2020 are still to be carried out.

by Algirdas ASTRAUSKAS

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 Georgia: the politics of regional development are improving #RoR2017

By

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

Territorial arrangement remains an open question

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

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

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

“Region”: different meanings for Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

Municipalities

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

Future regional development

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

by Davit GABAIDZE

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Moldova: are regions lacking autonomy? #RoR2017

By

The Republic of Moldova is part of the Eastern Partnership, which is an initiative that enables closer political, economic and cultural relations among the EU, its member states and 6 eastern European partners. Moldova gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The young republic later established itself as a “sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible state” in 1994 according to the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, which has been amended several times to date. The transition of the country from a communist regime to a democratic one gave way to the strengthening of national political stability and administrative bodies, the reform of central and local governments and the restructuring of domestic legislation.

During the transition period, the Republic implemented three administrative-territorial reforms, which impacted local public administration. In 1994, some changes were made to the Soviet system of administrative organisation, however the Soviet model remained largely unaltered. In 1997, Moldova ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Charter), which came into force in February 1998. On 30 December 1998, the Law on Territorial-Administrative Organisation was adopted, which subsequently allowed for a significant administrative reform whose goal was to increase the economic capacity and autonomy of local governments in line with the standards of the Charter. In December 2001, the newly elected Communist government carried out another round of administrative-territorial reforms, which restored a quasi-Soviet model of territorial division of authority and reduced local autonomy on the basis of the Law on Local Public Administration adopted on 18 March 2003.

Regional Governance

Moldova’s current local public administration is organized according to territorial-administrative units, which is based on the principles of local autonomy, decentralisation of public services, eligibility of local public administration authorities, and consultation of the citizens on local problems of special interest, as stated in Article 109 of the Constitution. The structure of Moldova’s local public administration was further elaborated upon by the Law on Local Public Administration of 28 December 2006, which states that the local government operates at two levels of administration. The first level of local public administration consists of local communities, villages and towns, whereas the second level consists of territorial-administrative units5.

The second tier of local public administration consists of public bodies with general or special powers created with the purpose of promoting interests and addressing the issues of the population of a given territorial administrative unit. There are thirty- five territorial units that correspond to this level of local government authority: thirty-two districts (rayons), two municipalities (municipii) -Chisinau and Balti, and one autonomous territorial unit (ATU Gagauzia). There is also one unrecognised territorial unit (Transnistria), which does not consider itself under the jurisdiction of Moldova, but is internationally considered as a part of Moldova.

The role of rayons (districts)

According to the Law on Local Public Administration, responsibilities of the rayons include public order – coordination, organisation and supervision of aspects of military administration; rayon-wide roads, construction, operation and repairs – rayon-wide local public transport; the construction of long-distance gas pipelines and other heat and power facilities of local importance; the coordination and implementation of sports and youth programs; maintenance of theatres and TV stations; provision of grants to the bottom tier ear-marked for personnel expenses in libraries and other cultural institutions other than museums; the construction, operation, and maintenance of primary schools, gymnasiums, lyceums, after-school and other educational institutions, boarding schools; and the social protection and maintenance of social institutions.

Each rayon elects a council, which coordinates the activities of the local councils in order to provide public services at the regional level. The Rayon Council disseminates information regarding draft legislation and acts as a bridge between the national and local governments. There are no specific mechanisms of communication established between the national and local governments; communication between the two is usually informal. The councils are elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot for a term of four years. The Head of the rayon is elected by the local council. 19 Heads currently compose the Union of Rayon Councils of Moldova (UCRM).

The Union of Rayon Councils of Moldova (UCRM) was established in 2012, after the implementation of the Initiative for European promotion project. UCRM is a non-governmental, non-profit and non-political organisation that represents the interests of the local public authorities. The mission of UCRM is to act as a common voice for the Rayon Councils, by representing and promoting them on a national and international level. UCRM aims to contribute to the harmonious development of the local communities of Moldova, by promoting, supporting, and implementing initiatives and projects.

In regards to the financing of the rayons, the Law on Public Administration stipulates that subnational administrative units in Moldova enjoy financial autonomy and have the right of initiative in all matters concerning local administration. However, there is a lack of financial and administrative autonomy for regional authorities in Moldova. In fact, they are deprived of decision-making powers regarding their own administrative structure and are quite dependent on the central government. This lack of autonomy can be seen in local budgeting, revenues, and expenditures, which show that budgetary processes in Moldova are still centralized to a great extent.

by Susannah GO

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Ireland: is the state still the “gatekeeper” to EU? #RoR2017

By

When the Irish state was established, it inherited the British system of local government, which pre-dated the state’s birth. After independence, no constitutional provision was made for local government.

A centralized system of governance

The Irish state developed a highly centralized system of government. The Irish government’s desire for centralized power was, however, concerned less with political principle and more with finding immediate and pragmatic solutions to the problems of government in the aftermath of war. The preference for functional efficiency, even at the expense of democratic accountability, is a trait that has characterized local government in Ireland since its foundation and perhaps best exemplified by the ‘managerial system’ of local administration.

Ireland is now divided into three regions, the Connaught-Ulster Region, the Southern Region, and the Eastern Midland region. The functions and structures of regions and associated regional bodies are determined by the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The report discusses in greater detail the organisation and functions of regional governance since the implementation of the recent local government reform legislation.

The Local Government Reform Act 2014 follows a series of national and supranational reports on the financing, functions and structures of local government in Ireland. It is clear the economic crisis, more specifically the state’s current budget deficit and agreement with the ‘Troika’, has been a significant engine of change for the current coalition government.

Role of the EU in Irish regionalisation

Despite the acknowledged and extensive role of EU structural and cohesion funds in Ireland, changes to the fundamental policy architecture of the state were minimal. Notwithstanding EU desires to promote the role of sub-national actors and sub-national policy capacities, Irish regionalisation was superficial and the state remains a highly centralized one. This reaffirms the view of the state as ‘gatekeeper’ to EU influence.

However, the equally acknowledged and highly significant impact on Irish policy styles and approaches. Whilst the central institutions of government were not substantially altered, the ways of operating within and between them have completely changed. Policy programming, monitoring, evaluation and partnership are now firmly established Irish policy protocols. This seems to uphold Bulmer and Radaelli’s (2004) view that even where national governments remain the key actors, Europeanization impacts can still be significant in establishing EU-wide vocabulary, criteria and belief systems implicit in the ‘communities of discourse’ co-created with EU cohesion funding.

Whilst there has been significant success in Ireland’s operationalization of both Multi-Level Governance and partnership approaches, much of the associated policy learning has taken place outside the formal institutions of local government.

In many cases, the Managing Authorities for successful cohesion and development initiatives have been independent partnership companies, funded by EU regional policies, with the support and approval of the Irish government, but outside its own formal remit. In the current climate of financial crisis, these are the very organisations that are now first in line for funding cutbacks.

by Maura ADSHEAD & Cian FINN

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 Macedonia: no longer one of the most centralised countries in Europe #RoR2017

By

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was a constituent state of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 1991. Despite experiencing considerable decentralisation in the Yugoslavian period, after independence the country increasingly centralised itself. As a result, in the Nineties, FYROM was regarded as one of the most centralized countries in Europe. The Constitution and law prescribed a number of competencies to the local self- government units, such as in the areas of urban planning, pre-school and primary education, primary health care, social welfare, culture and sports. In practice, however, the competencies were limited to only a few. This is due to the fact that the enabling legislation for implementing such competencies was not put in place.

History of FYROM Local Self-government

In November 1999, a Strategy on Reform of the System of Local Self-government was adopted. For local self-governments units, it foresaw: increased financial independence, the decrease of their number and further decentralization of the central government competencies to them. In 2001, the end of the internal conflict between the two largest ethnic groups, Macedonians and Albanians, led to increased decentralization and delegation of power to other non-Macedonian ethnic groups. Decentralization was considered the best way for shared power among local communities of various ethnic backgrounds. The same year, the Ohrid Framework Agreement was approved and the Constitution was amended. This offered better guarantees for the achievement of the objectives defined by the 1999 Strategy, including further decentralization of competencies, enlarged scope for the use of languages in the local government and new procedures for adoption of laws pertaining the local self-government system.

In 2001, the Government of the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES, aiming at the creation of regional levels for statistical purposes. The purpose was to provide statistical data at regional and local level on the basis of geographical, demographical, socio-economic and historical conditions. According to this decision, 5 levels were established for the Nomenclature: at level 1 and level 2 the whole country considered as one unit, at level 3 the statistical regions (8 units), at level 4 the groups of municipalities (34 units) and at level 5 the municipalities (123 units).

The adoption of a new Law on Local Self-government in January 2002 represented another step towards decentralisation. It was inspired by the pillars of the European Charter of Self- Government, which had been ratified by FYROM in 1997, thus recognising that decentralisation is essential for local government democracy. According to this Law, municipalities possessed general competency in all local matters. They were in charge of activities of local importance, not explicitly excluded from their competency nor falling under the competency of state authorities. The municipal competencies, prescribed in article 22 of the law, included: social welfare services, child protection, education, health care, urban and rural planning, communal activities, sport and local economic development1. Moreover, the Law on Local Self- Government Finances defined and regulated the revenue generation and fiscal management of Local Government Units (LGUs).

The decentralisation process started on 1 July 2005 in form of administrative and financial decentralisation or transfers. The legal reform was translated into five specific operational programs supporting decentralisation, which were supposed to elaborate the implementation of reforms towards higher local autonomy. The decentralisation process was conceived as a three phased approach, customized to the specific nature of an LGU and its development level. All municipalities have moved to the last phase of decentralisation. However, it has been pointed out that this has not guaranteed in itself the decentralisation success. Criticism emerged as decentralisation was politically-driven. Overlapping leadership and lack of efficiency in local government operations are often considered as obstacles to decentralisation. It has been noted that FYROM did not replicate its past local government success from Yugoslavia’s time. Regarding the financial and budget management, Macedonia is still far from the decentralisation level of EU countries.

Macedonia’s regions and the European Union

In 2003, the European Parliament established a new Regulation on NUTS, which regulated the joint statistical classification of the European territorial units for collecting, processing and disseminating harmonised regional statistical data in the Community. In 2004, the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Law on Territorial Organisation of the Local Self-Government. These developments required to harmonise the existing classification with the newly developed situation. Therefore, in December 2007, The Government of the Republic of Macedonia adopted the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 158/2007) and in 2014 adopted amendments to it (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Macedonia” No. 10/2014).

The NTES nomenclature provides a single and uniform breakdown of territorial units at regional and local level. It also represents a basis for collecting, processing and publishing regional statistics, used for planning and running the regional policy in the Republic of Macedonia. As the Republic of Macedonia is an EU candidate country, the State Statistical Office is obliged to provide Eurostat with regional statistics on various areas, according to the NTES nomenclature. Currently, the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics – NTES is made up of 5 levels. NTES level 1 and level 2 represent the whole territory of the State, considered as an administrative unit, whereas level 3 consists of 8 non-administrative units, i.e. statistical regions formed by grouping the municipalities as administrative units of lower level. NTES level 4 consists of 80 municipalities, considered as administrative units, out of which 10 municipalities make up the Greater Skopje, which has a distinct status. NTES level 5 consists of 1767 settlements.

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 Czech Republic: between independent and delegated competences #RoR2017

By

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

Regions: territorial communities of citizens

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

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

Regional Governance

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

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

Competences of the regions

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

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

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

Association of Regions in the Czech Republic

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

Czech Regions and the European Union

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

by Gianmartino Contu

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Library

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

Join AER!

Become a Member

Job Opportunities

Sign up for our Newsletter

Search

Website map