• Home
  • About
    • Governance & Structure
      • The AER Executive Board
    • The AER Secretariat
    • Statute & Strategies
      • AER Statute
      • AER Procedures
    • The History of AER
  • Members
    • Who are AER’s members?
    • Member Directory
    • Join AER!
  • Mutual Learning
    • About Mutual Learning
    • The Knowledge Transfer Forum
    • Working Groups
      • Ongoing Working Groups
      • Past Working Groups
  • Advocacy
    • About Our Advocacy Work
    • The Bureau
    • The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
    • AER Political Priorities 2020-2025
    • Intercultural Regions Network
  • Projects
    • About Our Projects
    • Ongoing Projects
    • Look for Partners
    • Completed Projects
  • AER Programmes
    • AER Eurodyssey
    • AER SUMMER ACADEMY
    • AER Youth Regional Network (YRN)
    • AER Observatory on Regionalisation
  • Events
    • AER events
    • Other events
  • AER stands with Ukraine

Assembly of European Regions

Connecting regions, inspiring Europe since 1985

You are here: Home / Archives for Spatial planning

This tag is for all posts relating to Spatial Planning.

European Biodiversity: Protecting Primary Forests

26 September, 2019 By Erica Lee

In the context of the AER Autumn Committee Plenaries on 26 September, the AER Working Group on Rural Development hosted a Breakfast Debate on European Biodiversity: Protecting Primary Forests.

Bringing together elected representatives and civil servants from across the regions of Europe, the breakfast briefing was an opportunity to decide on joint action in Europe for the protection of primary forests.

Primary forests have high conservation value but are rare in Europe due to historic land use. Primary forests are biodiversity-rich and provide essential ecosystem services. Even if the majority (89%) of the primary forest is mapped as in protected areas, much of it is not strictly protected in practice.

Wide patches of primary forest are being currently logged in many mountain areas, in particular in Romania. Increased demand for bioenergy, coupled with high rates of illegal logging, is leading to the destruction of this irreplaceable natural heritage. 

The future of our forests is a concern for all European citizens, not least as protecting primary forests contributes directly to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goal n°15: ‘Life on land’.

Leading the discussion, Olimpia Neagoe, Chair of the AER Working Group on Rural Development gave examples from her home country, Romania, and showcased the work the working group is doing in this area.

Olimpia Neagoe, Chair of the AER Working Group on Rural Development

AER was pleased to be joined by some external experts on this topic, among them, Shiroma Sathyapala, Forestry Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. The FAO is a ‘custodian’ for 21 indicators under 6 of the Sustainable Development Goals.

She stressed the importance of sustainable forest management for European biodiversity:

“Managing forests in a sustainable way is central to the achievement of all SDGs. It’s critical to addressing climate change, conserving biodiversity and protecting ecosystems, supplying clean water, and ensuring sustainable cities and communities.” 

Good governance, on the part of local and regional authorities, is essential for this. She continued:


“Good governance in forest management is fundamental. A large part of good forest management is engaging local communities, land users and landowners.” 

Shiroma Sathyapala & Peter Skoberne

Peter Skoberne, from the Slovenian Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, gave insights into the situation in Slovenia, stating that Slovenian forests are a traditional good practice of forest management. However, in the last 10 years, they have faced more competition for forest resources and pressure on land use. 

He emphasised how important it is to stand up for our natural resources, saying;

We tend to think that political decisions are beyond our scope but we need to get our way in decision making to make a change. 

The AER Working Group on Rural Development will continue its work in this field. If you are a member interested in getting involved, please contact Johanna Pacevicius, AER Coordinator for Policy & Knowledge Transfer.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

European Biodiversity: Protecting Primary Forests

21 August, 2019 By Norina Haubold

The AER Working Group on Rural Development is organising a breakfast debate on the protection of primary forests in Europe on 26 September at the AER Autumn Committee Plenaries 2019 in Podčetrtek (SI). Members will discuss in particular why these rather rare forests matter and how AER members can collectively act to protect primary forests in Romania.

Why primary forests matter

Scientists at the Geography Department of the Humboldt-University of Berlin (HU) have compiled the first map showing Europe’s primary forests. Primary forests are forests of native tree species, in which there are no clearly visible indications of human activities, and in which ecological processes follow natural dynamics. These rare forests are the only places where many endangered species live. They provide essential ecosystem services.

Most of the primary forests in Europe are small and fragmented. Additionally, a high fraction (54%) is currently not under strict protection. Currently, wide patches of primary forest are being logged in many mountain areas, in particular in Romania and Slovakia and in some Balkan countries. High demand for bioenergy, coupled with high rates of illegal logging are leading to the destruction of this irreplaceable natural heritage. 

Illegal logging: a threat to biodiversity

Romania is one of the European countries with the highest presence of primary forests in Europe. According to a project conducted by the Royal Dutch Society Natural History Society (KNNV) in co-operation with Romanian Forest Research and Management Institute (ICAS) in 2001, there are 218.500 hectares of primary forest in Romania. Approximately 20% of the Romanian territory is classified as Natura 2000 which unfortunately doesn’t mean these areas are protected from excessive or illegal logging.

Agent Green, a Romanian non-governmental non-profit organisation dedicated to protecting the environment, showed in their 2018 report that the total amount of trees logged in Romania is more than double than what is allowed in official forest management plans. An alleged €25m illegal logging ring was discovered in 2018, the topic of forest protection got increased attention.

Other challenges for the protection of primary forests include:

  • Economic pressure within the forest sector generated by the necessity to assure the rentability both in state and in private forests
  • Re-privatisation process of parts of primary forest which makes it difficult to introduce sustainable management techniques
  • Asymmetric location and fragmentation of primary forests in Romania
  • Primary forests are not sufficiently mapped yet

Joint Action for the protection of primary forests

The AER Breakfast briefing will be an opportunity to decide on joint action in Europe for the protection of primary forests, with a focus on Romanian primary forests. Indeed biodiversity in Europe is a collective responsibility and Europe’s primary forests are very rare. This action will enable to contribute to UN Sustainable Development Goal 15: Life on land.
The Breakfast debate will feature the following speakers:

  • Olimpia Neagoe, Chair of the AER working group on rural development
  • Shiroma Sathyapala, FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia
  • Peter Skoberne, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (SI)
  • Romanian NGO (tbc)

During the breakfast briefing, members will discuss is how forests contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and how to support European regions, in particular in Romania, to safeguard forest biodiversity and ecosystems. The aim of the breakfast briefing is to present different opportunities for concerted action and decide on the next steps.

Peer exchanges for better environmental policies and practices

On top of awareness-raising and advocacy for the protection of primary forests together with all European institutions, AER is also supporting its members to engage in peer learning on this topic.

In particular

  • Exchange of experiences via the TAIEX-EIR tool of DG Environment, to help improve legislation and practices for the protection of forests and biodiversity in Romania.
  • Increase the visibility of the issue and our support as a network for the protection of Forests in Romania through concerted action and collaboration with institutional stakeholders such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

Join the breakfast debate and bring in your ideas for the protection of primary forests and biodiversity in Europe.

Photo on Pexels.

Follow AER!
Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

UIA: new call for proposals to be launched soon

5 April, 2018 By Editor

More than half of the European population is living in urban areas. Those areas face numerous challenges but are also places of creativity and change. AER is committed to support urban areas who want to tackle issues and has already taken part in actions or events. Aware of the funding opportunities provided by the European Union, AER continues its work of monitoring calls for proposals that encourage the development of projects in this direction.

Therefore, we would like to share with you the announcement of the 4th call for proposals of Urban Innovative Actions (UIA) dedicated to encourage innovative solutions to tackle issues urban areas face.

What is the fourth call for proposals about?

The UIA has announced the topic of its 4th call for proposals. This time, projects will have to address one of the following topic:

  • digital transition
  • urban poverty
  • sustainable use of land
  • urban security

More information will be available on April 2018 and the call will be officially launched in October.

Practical information

UIA co-finances 80% of the projects selected.

If you are an urban authority or a grouping of urban authorities gathering more than 50,000 inhabitants willing to address one of this issue in an innovative way thanks to the involvement of key stakeholders, we invite you to look for further information in the following weeks.

If you have a project idea or if you are interested to get engaged in projects aiming at tackling one of the following issues, please do not hesitate to contact the AER Secretariat.

European Projects

Agnese Pantaloni

Phone: +32 2 400 10 52
E-mail: a.pantaloni(at)aer.eu
Skype ID: agnesepanta
Languages: it, en, pt

Articles by Agnese


  • EU funding
  • Calls for projects and tenders
  • Partner search

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Montenegro: not regions, but municipalities #RoR2017

19 February, 2018 By Editor

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 Bulgaria: reducing regional disparities #RoR2017

1 January, 2018 By Editor

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

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

Great disparities

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

Informal regions

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

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

Regions’ interactions and Governance

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

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

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

New efforts

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

by Vasselina Troeva

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in The Netherlands: Regional reform discussed, but limited #RoR2017

27 November, 2017 By Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Nico Groenendijk

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in Denmark: Centralised, for now.

24 October, 2017 By Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Martin Klatt

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

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

7 August, 2017 By Editor

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

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

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

Regional governments’ principles

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

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

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

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

The Planning regions

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

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

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

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

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

Main conclusions:

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

by Maris Pukis

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regionalisation in France: developed, but incomplete

17 July, 2017 By Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Paul ALLIÈS & Emmanuel NÉGRIER

For the full report on France, click here.

 

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

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

12 June, 2017 By Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the full report on Finland, see here.

_____________

The Report on the state of Regionalisation in Europe.

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

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

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

Strong European regions are a pathway to a stronger Europe.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

AER at European Day of Persons with Disabilities 2016

2 December, 2016 By Johanna Pacevicius

Ángel Bonafé Osca, Director of the Valencian Institute for Social Action and María Sorzano Castellón, European Project Manager represented AER on 29 and 30 November at the European Day of Persons with Disabilities 2016 organised by the European Disability Forum and the European Commission in Brussels.

UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: 10 years!

20161130_115302The conference evaluated the progress made in the EU to promote the rights of persons with disabilities, based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This topic has been dealt with extensively at AER in the Committee on Social Policy and Public Health in previous years. A handbook for regional policy-makers was for instance published in 2010 which is a very hands-on guide on how to translate principles into action. It typically features 13 concrete steps a regional politician can take, such as

  • “If your country has not ratified the Convention yet, inquire on the reasons why it has not, propose to launch a debate on this issue and lobby for your national government to ratify the Convention and its Optional Protocol.”
  • “Review draft legislation to assess conformity with the Convention.”
  • “Liaise with civil society groups, including organisations representing persons with disabilities and human rights organisations.”

AER mainstreamed the topic across its activities and the 2011 edition of the AER award for the Most Youth friendly European Region (MYFER) was focused on “social inclusion of youth with disabilities”

Evaluating the progress

The European Day of Persons with Disabilities 2016  was structured around five pillars:

  1. An overview of the 10th Anniversary of the UN Convention
  2. UN Convention and a Social Europe. Poverty, Social Protection and Employment
  3. Accesibility and freedom of movement within the EU
  4. The Right to Independent Living
  5. Women with Disabilities

From a medical model to a human rights model

20161129_101152Speakers insisted on the importance of the transition from a medical model to a human rights model of disability. A new approach to disability policy making is needed.

They were critical about the European Pillar of Social Rights as it has not taken into account the human rights of persons with disabilities vision and does not refer to 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The UN Convention should be used as an instrument to mainstream the rights of persons with disabilities into other European directives. It is, therefore, necessary for EU legislation to be harmonised with the UN Convention.

One of the current challenges is to include the UN Convention perspective in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

They also insisted the legal nature of the European Pillar of Social Rights should be specified and include the rights of women and children with disabilities in it.

Expanding the reach of European Pillar of Social Rights needs furthermore to be expanded beyond the eurozone countries.

Independent living

In the panel on independent living, speakers were particularly critical of the fact that the ESF was used in some countries for “Institutionalization” rather than for improving independent living. For the period 2014-2020, ESF is available to promote deinstitutionalisation and community living.

Women with disabilities

In this panel, speakers underlined the fact that nowadays no specific actions are being taken to fight for the rights of women and girls with disabilities. There is also a lack of the role of women in public life. For its part, the European Commission explained the priority  areas for action for the period 2016-2019:

·     Increasing female labour-market participation and the equal economic independence of women and men.

·     Reducing the gender pay, earnings, and pension gaps and thus fighting poverty among women.

·     Promoting equality between women and men in decision-making.

·     Combating gender-based violence and protecting and supporting victims.

·     Promoting gender equality and women’s rights across the world.

 

Annual Access City Award

accessibility-cityThis year the Annual Access City Award was presented by the Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility, Marianne Thyssen together with European Disability Forum President Yannis Vardakastanis, Belgian Actor Pascal Duquenne  and  Beatrice Vio, Italian Olympic Athlete. The winner was the City of Chester (UK). The 2nd prize was the City of Rotterdam (NL) and the 3rd prize went to Jurmala (Latvia).

 

 

Moreover, the following projects received a special mention:

–        Smart Cities to Lugo, Spain.

–        Continued Commitment to Accessibility in difficult geographic circumstances to Funchal, Portugal.

–        Continued Commitment to Accessibility in challenging times to Alessandria, Italy.

–        Accessible work environments to Skellefteå, Sweden.

 

article written by María Sorzano Castellón, María Sorzano Castellón, European Project Manager, Valencian Institute of Social Action

Other related articles

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

E-health: how to find a common language?

1 December, 2016 By Johanna Pacevicius

Regional governments and their stakeholders, in particular, companies shared experiences on 1 December 2016 at the “E-health: let’s find a common language” event hosted by Brussels Capital at the Committee of the Regions. The event aimed at providing participants with information on funding opportunities in the field of healthcare,  new connections, tested ideas to improve communication between stakeholders, inspiration and mutual understanding.

Genuine exchanges

cor-1E-health brings together stakeholders which are not always used to work together. While improving cooperation is on all lips, the consequences of miscommunication are often under-estimated. The so-called geek gap is costing millions to the economy. The cultural clash between different stakeholders prevents them from building trust and deepen cooperation.

The event, therefore, was designed with a strong focus on enabling participants to take an active role. Because purpose-driven networking is often more of a wishful thought than a reality, every single element of the event was aimed at facilitating the exchange of experience between participants from different stakeholder groups.

Engagement & openness

hob

AER President Dr. Hande Özsan Bozatli, welcomed guests and underlined the longstanding engagement of AER in the field of e-health, with in particular the creation of the AER [email protected] network in 2006. Expertise has grown over the years and shifted from rather technical discussions to the transformative power of e-health in the public service. Several projects have been developed within the network and carried out, in particular, the Smartcare ICT-PSP project, which was the largest EU deployment project on integrated care systems. Other projects such United4health and Engaged supported regions in the deployment of telemedicine and created mutual learning across Europe around smart health.

eric-v-merrienboerNorth Brabant Minister for Spatial Planning and Finances Eric van Merrienboer delivered an inspiring speech on the need for open cooperation as a sine qua non condition to achieve the desired results or realise innovations. This open cooperation is based on 4 main elements:  taking your own responsibility, knowledge, skills, respect for each other. “An organisation such as the AER is ideally suited to act as a role model and leader”, he said, because regions in and outside the European Union make it possible to identify and approach other stakeholders “to find a common language in the exchange of knowledge and skills, but also to actually do business with each other”.

Sharing the small things

Each delegate had the opportunity to explain how they work on a set of topics in small and rather informal discussion groups. Participants put across challenges they are confronted with, in particular, which stakeholders they find difficult to engage or even to communicate with and why they would like to see the communication with these stakeholders improve. Hearing from others what they find difficult helps to get new perspectives.

Participants enriched the discussion with examples which they have seen improve common understanding between stakeholders. Often examples can seem insignificant as such but as a group and through the discussion they can actually be illuminating.

It is often by sharing the small things that common understanding starts to emerge because it refers to the practical aspects and the “how do we start”

Discussion groups were organised around the following topics:

  • Public-private partnerships

Moderated by Marco D’Angelantonio from HIM SA, with contributions from Pieter van den Haak from ParkinsonNet, Kees Kools from the Care Innovation Center West-Brabant, Wil Philipsen from Fresh Idea Factory and several regional representatives.

  • Pre-commercial procurement / procurement for innovation

Moderated by Freja Hagsund from EUREGHA, with contributions from Lynda Jones and Jane Brady from the Welsh government as well as Dr. Ramon Maspons from the Agency for Health Quality and Assessment of Catalonia (AQuAS, as per the acronym in Catalan) and many other stakeholders

  • Translating Research and Innovation into practice through collaborative engagement

Moderated by Marc Lange from EHTEL, with contributions from Prof. Dr. Bart Neyns from UZ Brussels, Bas Goossen from MiBida and other participants.

  • Patient-centered innovation

Moderated by Lonneke Rompen from ParkinsonNet, with contributions from Nilofar Niazi, from TRAINM, as well as other organisations and regional stakeholders.

  • Capacity building in care system

Moderated by Olivier Naeyaert from UZ Brussels, with contributions from Paul De Raeve and Kostas Aligiannis from the European Federation of Nurses (EFN) and many other delegates.

Inputs were captured and synthesised by rapporteurs, who disclosed them in the plenary session.

Hands-on inspiration

A study visit to the Microsoft Executive Briefing Center in Brussels was an opportunity to discuss public-private partnerships. The visit provided insights on the latest technological  innovations and trends and was an opportunity to speak about the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. This video on the Seeing AI project showcases for instance how artificial intelligence is enabling blind people to “see” what happens around them, recognising people’s age and emotions or reading from a menu in a restaurant. Microsoft has also recently announced a quartet of initiatives aimed at “solving” cancer via artificial intelligence.

Cross-sectoral cooperation

Cooperation was probably the word most heard during the whole event. It all started with the cooperation between Jean-Luc Vanraes, President of the AER Committee on Regional development and Economy and Agneta Granström, President of the AER Committee on Social Policy and Public Health, who decided to initiate a cooperation on e-health early 2016. Indeed while demographic change should be an opportunity to develop IT innovation and e-health technologies, SMEs are the backbone of the European economy and more than ever before regions need to support their companies in being able to take advantage of the growth potential of e-health & the silver economy. This is why the AER [email protected] network and the Working group on Business, SMEs and Investments held a joint meeting at the Timişoara Start up HUB on the occasion of the Spring plenaries this year and recently organised a workshop on health innovation ecosystems in Izmir.

Networks as facilitators and bridges

The event was designed and organised together with networks AER collaborates with regularly in the field of health. CORAL, EUREGHA and EHTEL played a significant role in the success of this event by providing their expertise, but maybe more specifically by acting as facilitators and as bridges between different stakeholders.

Related upcoming event

alec2017-comALEC, Accelerating Digital Health is organised for the fifth time in Norrbotten (SE) and will be an opportunity to discuss how to bridge health gaps in the age of digital everything. The conference is a place for meaningful connection with peers and experts from all over the world in an incredible environment where time and space seem to obey to different rules. These two days of inspiration, networking and skill development will enable participants to futher engage for the digital transformation of health and society as a whole and develop tools to design better health for all.

Once again ALEC will present a great line-up of top-level digital health thought leaders, policy makers and business innovators who will deliver inspiring and informative keynotes on The Digital Transformation of Healthcare and Health Equity in the Digital Age.

Regions, which would like to share their experience in change management for digital transformation should contact AER Coordinator for Policy & Knowledge Transfer Johanna Pacevicius.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Sustainable mobility: the way forward

7 November, 2016 By Johanna Pacevicius

The modernisation and democratisation of means of transports have radically changed how we perceive distances and the world in general. At the same time resource scarcity, climate change and geopolitical stakes have obliged us to re-think models of mobility.

Sustainable mobility: a brand new world

From 7 to 10 November AER members are gathered in Izmir (TR) on the occasion of the Fall Plenary meetings of the 3 AER thematic Committees. The overarching theme of this series of meetings is sustainable mobility, because mobility is first of all access – to work, education, goods and services including health, friends and family. Choices in mobility therefore directly affect the competitiveness of territories but also rural-urban relations, territorial and social cohesion, fairness in terms of health or education, energy security, the circular economy etc

An energy intensive sector

According to the Fifth Asessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, transports account for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Trends in transport are impacted by population growth and changes in demographics as well as by changes in the structure of the economy. The shift to a service economy among other things considerably  increases the weigh of transport in greenhouse gas emissions as for instance retail and other services depend on energy-intensive infrastructure.

Connectivity: essential for regional development

For regions, connectivity is an essential element for economic development. For Europe this is also a question of territorial cohesion, a matter for which AER has consistently been lobbying. This is why members in the working groups on transports and energy have focused on different aspects of connectivity including railway, regional airports, and electric vehicles.

“Sustainable”, what’s in a word?

Defining mobility as sustainable refers to the ability of individuals to provide for their needs without compromising the same ability to future generations. To minimise the negative impact of greenhouse gas emissions, individuals need information, motivation and/ or incentives to promote more sustainable solutions for instance public transport or bicycles, instead of individual cars. The key challenge is to meet environmental, economic and societal sustainability. With the new role of subnational entities and organisations, after COP21, regions more than ever have a crucial role in implementing environmentally responsible and sustainable policies.

Regions: the way forward

Sustainable transports and mobility therefore require a holistic approach which goes far beyond the remit of spatial planners. But more importantly sustainable mobility requires mutual learning and experience sharing because the time is now. Regions have a tremendous potential to make the change happen and they are doing it already.

 

More Links

IPCC report on Transport
EC Studies on sustainable transport

Photo credits Tambako The Jaguar @Flickr http://tinyurl.com/jbmxbsxFollow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

At the intersection of urban policies and the migration issue

31 October, 2016 By Editor

On 13 October, as part of the the 14th edition of the European Week of Regions and Cities (EWRC) in Brussels, the workshop, “Migration and Cities: Territorial Aspects of Migration” was held. It fell under the Inclusive economic growth theme of EWRC.

The workshop focused on the intersection of urban policies and the issues of migration, which tend to be discussed separately although migration is primarily concentrated in urban areas. The speakers – Ms. Aspa Gospodini, Mr. William Le Goff, and Ms. Yvonne Franz – presented three different cases of the interdependencies between migrants and urban areas, using data from Greek cities, Paris, and Vienna, respectively.

The first speaker, Ms. Yvonne Franz – a researcher with Institut für Stadt – und Regionalforschung (ISR), presented us with the case study of Vienna. She underlined the importance of and the increasing need for a co-creation of Niche Public Services (NPS). With migrants becoming a big part of the housing market and local communities, she claimed that NPS are more effective than the Fordist Public Service provisions currently in place in Vienna.

When asked how refugees and asylum seekers can be integrated into Viennese society, Ms. Yvonne Franz stated that while there is currently enormous civic engagement and support on a regular basis along with federal and city policies, there aren’t any permeable systems in place for housing. However, concerning urban policies on housing in Vienna, there has been a shift in housing laws, which has made housing more accessible, as the city grasped the need to build housing quickly and cheaply.

The second speaker, Ms. Aspa Gospodini – an Urban planning & design professor at the University of Thessaly, presented us with the case study of Greek cities. She highlighted that as of the last five years, the main land-use change for Greek cities is the transformation of the economic character of the city centre. Vacant spaces, which formerly belonged to the commercial and service-entrepreneurial sector, have recently gone to the cultural-entertainment sector and are fostering economic growth in Greek cities.

When questioned about the degree of integration of migrants in Greek cities, especially in Athens, Ms. Aspa Gospodini commented that while the first wave of immigrants (in the period after WWII) did not have any trouble integrating into society, this recent wave of refugees and migrants from Syria and Afghanistan, did indeed have difficulties integrating. She also opined that the best solution for integration in terms of space may be the renewal and restoration of small factory plants and wholesale housing units, which could then be sporadically and evenly distributed to serve as cheap housing options for migrants.

The third speaker, Mr. William Le Goff – researcher with the Ile-de-France region, presented us with the case study of the self-managed migrant hostel (Le Centenaire) in Montreuil, Paris. He considers Le Centenaire to be a successful example of integrating migrants socially and economically into their environment, as they are not segregated from the politics in Montreuil. However, he also explained that if other migrants do have trouble integrating, a main part of that comes from the irrelevance of current urban policies in place that respond to the needs of the past, as they were inherited from the 1960s. There has, seemingly, not been any change in urban policy in Paris in response to the current migrant crisis.

These three cases have demonstrated that urban policies need to adapt with the times, to the migrant crisis challenges that is being thrown their way, with the ever-increasing number of migrants in urban areas. It is increasingly clear that accommodating migrants will be one of the main responsibilities of cities in the future. The speakers are optimistic that if cities are willing to adjust their policies to fit the needs of the migrants that have recently arrived and those that will arrive in the future, these migrants can be a driving factor of economic growth in European cities.

Migration is an issue of great importance to AER, which falls under our Revitalising Democracy theme; and AER has worked on it in a variety of ways. Firstly, AER has called for action in the field of Migration & culture, and proposals in Migration and integration, and Migration and social inclusion. Secondly, AER held talks on the refugee crisis on the occasion of last year’s Bureau. Lastly, it has also been a priority in the Committees’ spring plenary meetings, which bore concrete exchanges on good practices. AER has worked on the issue of migration at different levels: the project-based level, the political level and the good practices level.Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

Regions lead the way to sustainable mobility

16 September, 2016 By Elin Berglie

The Sustainable Mobility Debate of REVOLVE took place in Brussels on Thursday 15 September 2016. Two panels and more than ten speakers advancing mobility solutions to reach a reduction of 50% in transport-related CO2 emissions by 2030. The opening speeches set the tone of the debate, introducing first the EU strategy towards low emission mobility (Edoardo Turano, DG Clima) and an advance of what would be a key question of the debate: how a mental shift is necessary to effectively achieve a model shift (Francois Bellot, Belgian Federal Minister of Mobility).

The first panel on how regions are showing the way towards sustainable mobility counted with four speakers. We were very proud to see three of our member regions sharing their experiences.

img_1936

Pascal Smet‘s presentation shared the very inspiring story of how the Region of Brussels (BE) wants to shift from a city for cars to a city for people. A big challenge in a city where cars have being in the focus of urban design for too long time. With half of the citizens not owing a car and just 4% of the population riding bikes in the city, there lots of room for improvement, and the first steps have been already taken. Alessia Masini, from the city of Pisa (Tuscany, IT), presented the initiatives that the city has started to implement in order to manage the big influx of commuters from the region (the city has less than 100.000 inhabitants but receives 200.ooo visits per day). A bet for intermodality is their trademark: a cable car “the people mover” will connect the city and the airport, and the recently gained navigability of the Arno river will open access the sea.

img_1944Jan Owe-Larsson spoke as chairman of the AER Working Group on Mobility and Transports, introducing the Assembly of European Regions and the work of the Committee 1 on developing sustainable regions. Afterwards he presented the case of Östergötland (SE). The region has achieved 100% renewable-fuelled public transport thanks to the use of biogas. But the challenge is now how to motivate the citizens to opt for the sustainable means of transport that are available for them. This requires a holistic approach, analysing the mobility needs of the population and identifying what triggers their behaviour, so we can make the public transport option the best one available.

14375442_10153718036385899_365166836_oFinally, Benoit Pavageau presented the specific challenges that the Canton of Geneva (CH) faces due to its location between he rest of the Helvetic Confederation and the French region of Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes. Cross border cooperation is the only way to vertebrate the territory in a sustainable way, solving the challenges of a mountainous orography and a complicated demography, with one out of three worker in the city center living in France. Developing the railroad system is the chosen option (Léman 2030 Strategy), a combination of duplicating both frequency and capacity of the network and linking the system with neighbouring areas through new railways to be built before 2030.

img_1930At the end of the first panel, the moderator (Alexandre Brecx from AER’s secretariat) engaged the regions in the most pressing question: how to overcome the resistance of people to change their habits and embrace sustainable mobility? Brussels advised to use the increase in quality of life as a driving force for change. However, it is never an easy path. Our societies are focused on immediate results and expect short-term satisfaction, making it a challenge for politicians to dare to take up big projects. They know the initial resistance will dominate public discussion. Mr. Smet’s recommendation was to listen to the citizens when preparing the project; once the decision is taken, politicians should keep the communication channels open but stick to the decisions taken. Mr. Owe-Larsson insisted on the need for politicians to take their responsabilities and to “make it happen“.

The second panel was moderated by Xavier Tackoen (Espaces-Mobilités) and it presented innovative technologies advancing sustainable mobility. Remi Lebeda (IRU) presented how innovations in road planning can lead to a reduction in fuel consumption; Umberto Guida (UITP) presented how the bus sector tries to change how it is perceived and become a key piece of the pool of available mobility solutions; Wolfram Auer (Dopplemayr Group) invited us to think in three dimensions and consider urban cars as a flexible, efficient and accessible solution that can vertebrate a city, as it has been proved in Caracas and La Paz; and Stephan Schultz (15 marches) advanced a future where cars will be electric, shared services, and autonomously driven.

The debate was closed by Alain Flausch, Secretary General of the UITP. All in all, a very inspiring and comprehensive event organised by our friends (and neighbours at the Renewable Energy House) of REVOLVE. Thanks for inviting the European regions to be part of it!

Presentations

Presentation Sustainable Mobility – Marco Filippeschi, Pisa (IT)
Presentation Sustainable Mobility – Jan Owe-Larsson, AER and Östergötland (SE)
Presentation Sustainable Mobility – Pascal Smet, Brussels (BE)
Presentation Sustainable Mobility – Benoit Pavageau, Genève (CH)

Follow AER!

Facebooktwitterlinkedinrss

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
Tweets by @europeanregions

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

Brussels · Strasbourg · Alba Iulia

A Network, a Partner and a Voice of European regions, since 1985 · Copyright © 2023 · Assembly of European Regions · [email protected] · Log in