SPRING SESSION                                                                                                  CPL(13)8PART2

(Strasbourg, 26-28 March 2007)                                                                                    15.01.2007

STANDING COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL COHESION

CHAMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The evolution of extreme poverty in European towns

Rapporteur: Etienne VAN VAERENBERGH, Belgium

Chamber of Local Authorities, political group : ILDG

----------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Executive summary

The Congress is particularly aware of the need for urgent, effective and concerted action in the face of extreme poverty.  Local authorities, particularly large and medium-sized towns, are directly affected by this problem and are often impelled to intervene in emergency situations without having all the necessary resources available.

The Congress report on “Combating severe poverty in towns and cities: the role of local authorities”, adopted at its 2004 Plenary Session, concluded that a pooling of experience at local level is essential. In order to provide local decision makers with relevant information and recommendations the report not only drew on work already carried out in Europe in this field but also on specially collected data on local authority practices.

The resolution adopted at the same Plenary Session (Resolution 182) called on the Committee on Social Cohesion to provide the Congress on a regular basis with an overview of developments in the situation of extreme poverty in Europe’s towns and cities. In accordance with this resolution, the Congress undertook a fresh analysis of the evolution of extreme poverty in European towns and of the action taken in this field at local level.  This report is the result of that consultation.

Among recommendations following this new analysis of the situation are the suggestion that national programmes be drawn up to combat extreme urban poverty in close consultation with local and regional authorities, that local partnership committees be set up bringing together municipal officials and charitable organisations involved in projects to combat extreme urban poverty, that specific measures such as free municipal travel be made available to the disadvantaged, in particular the employed, to facilitate their search for jobs, and that the Congress participate closely in the Council of Europe project on “Strengthening social cohesion by avoiding exclusion and growing inequalities” and continue its work with the European Dialogue Platform on Ethical and Solidarity-based initiatives set up by the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Social Cohesion.

Table of contents

Table of contents

1. Local/regional authority participation in the 2003 questionnaire.................................................. 5

2. Characteristics of your local/regional authority......................................................................... 5

            a. What is you authority’s budget in euros?.................................................................................... 5

            b. Number of inhabitants............................................................................................................... 6

           

3. Actions carried out:......................................................................................................................... 6

            c. Main fields of application of your policy for combating extreme poverty......................................... 6

            d. In order of priority, what kind of approach do you favour for combating extreme poverty?............... 7

            e. For which category of the population did you implement this policy?............................................. 8

            f. Are you satisfied with the results of your policy for combating extreme poverty?............................ 8

            g. Do you consult with partners from civil society to devise and implement initiatives to combat poverty?     9

            h. The budget in euros allocated to this initiative............................................................................. 9

4. Main projects pursued as part of this policy:................................................................................ 10

i. To help other local authorities draw inspiration from your work, please summarise the main aspects of this action................................................................................................................................................ 10

j. With a view to the preparation of recommendations/resolutions, we highlight seven points............. 10

Annexes:

            Questionnaire............................................................................................................................. 12

            Summary table........................................................................................................................... 13

The present report forms part of the follow-up of the surveys (in 2003) and of the conclusions already formulated in a previous report entitled “The role of local authorities in fighting extreme poverty in towns” (CPL/SOC (10) 2 of 10 March 2004 and in Resolution 182 (2004) and Recommendation 154 (2004) adopted by the Congress.

The goal set was to check, following an initial questionnaire to which some 850 European local authorities had replied, what resources the latter had actually been able to deploy to fight urban poverty.

So a fresh questionnaire was sent out, and 419 local authorities have replied to it. The replies overall reveal that 23 countries (fairly distributed among the member-States of the Council of Europe) have contributed to the survey. The rate of return (79.3% of replies to the questionnaire) is regarded as very satisfactory.

All the same it should be noted that some boxes were not filled in by certain towns, which did not use the full range of possible replies, in particular the town budget, the number of inhabitants or the action budget. This has led us to exclude those authorities from the analysis calculation in order to avoid distorting the figures.

It is also very clear that over 90% of the towns that replied stated that they had not taken part in the first survey; consequently the results obtained are more like a fresh inventory of action taken than a true monitoring exercise.

On the whole, the "typical town" that emerges from the reply analysis is as follows: a town of fewer than 100,000 inhabitants and a total budget of over 260 million euros and which has allocated about 75 million euros to the action taken. Priority has been given to financial aid and food aid. For the most part the beneficiaries of this action are families and the elderly. The preferred type of approach seems to be action by the authorities, with the result that the assessment of this action by the municipality is quite satisfactory. It should be noted, however, that more often than not the action was taken in consultation or in partnership with civil society.

Principal characteristics of the typical town that replied to the questionnaire

In order better to understand the replies by the municipalities, we will first present the results in flat tabulation and then cross-tabulate several items of data.

The presentation that follows takes the various questions proposed and to which the towns have replied in the order in which they appear in the questionnaire.

1. Local/regional authority participation in the 2003 questionnaire:

The question regarding participation by the municipality in the 2003 survey yields the following results:

The very high proportion of towns responding to the survey for the first time should be noted.

2. Characteristics of your local/regional authority:

        What is your authority’s budget (in euros)?

The budgetary band most frequently cited is in relation to the size of the local authorities that replied to the questionnaire. This is quite obviously an average that should be treated with caution, because the heterogeneous nature of the economic situations militates against a precise interpretation seeking to claim that here we have an average picture of municipal budgets in relation to the number of inhabitants shown below.

If we focus on the local authorities which replied in large numbers to the 2003 questionnaire and cross-reference them with their budgets, we can see that those with budgets of less than 300,000 € were proportionately fewer to reply in 2003, whereas a very significant 2003 response came from those with budgets of between 300,000 € and 600,000 €.

b. Number of inhabitants:

We can see that the overwhelming majority of the authorities replying to the survey have fewer than 200,000 inhabitants. Municipalities with over a million inhabitants stressed that it was difficult for them to reply to this questionnaire because the number of actions to combat poverty was such that it was impossible to cite them all.

However, as soon as we refine the replies by cross-referencing those which replied and did not reply to the 2003 survey and the population brackets, we arrive at a very significant finding that the local authorities with 300,000 to 500,000 inhabitants participated in large numbers in the 2003 survey.

3. Actions carried out:

c.         The main fields of application of your policy for combating extreme poverty are:

The flat tabulation system gives us a picture showing that the first reply by local authorities is still financial aid for the benefit of the needy in their communities. So these are vital needs to which a priority response is given, but with actions aimed at financial independence via integration through employment. However, we know that one of the reasons for the vulnerability of these poor populations is their low employability. It is therefore surprising, at this stage in the analysis, to see that training comes next to last. One possible explanation is that local authorities seem to have taken account of the strong growth in recent years in a new population consisting of “poor employees” in difficulty. These do not lack the training necessary to find a job, and indeed they have a trade, but the economic situation no longer allows them to find accommodation and to meet essential needs. They therefore naturally turn to their local authorities, which have no solution other than to respond by aid and assistance.

We find on the whole that the classification of the first four fields is still very standard, because financial aid, food aid, employment integration, and emergency accommodation are emergency measures, while seeming destined to be perpetuated. This does not mean that the same beneficiaries are involved, but that the system is reproducing itself in a way. Of course, the figures show that only 50% of those replying are affected, thus giving the impression that the other 50% have adopted more innovative approaches such as, for example, encouragement to improve self-image, the importance of hygiene, the recognition of minorities, or even education and training. These are all factors that facilitate the social, not to say professional, integration of these people.

We have been pleasantly surprised by the fact that several local authorities in Europe have committed themselves to promoting public awareness of responsible consumption, because this topic is not much addressed as yet, although it is precisely those in difficulties who might find new methods of consumption compatible with their low disposable incomes.

Where the cross-referencing of data is concerned, to ascertain whether there might be a significant difference between those which replied and did not reply to the 2003 survey and the fields of application, cross-tabulation, including for the "independence test", reveals no signficant difference between them.

d.             In order of priority, what kind of approach do you favour for combating extreme poverty?

This table shows that very many local authorities see themselves as having a leading responsibility for finding responses to the needs of persons in extreme poverty. These authorities also resort to action by charitable organisations, which help greatly in supplementing public action by aid derived from gifts and the commitment of volunteers. It should be noted that quite a number of authorities recorded replies in the box “Other form of action”, though without giving any additional information.

e.             For which category of the population did you implement this policy?

Families are intended to be the priority beneficiaries of aid and action by local authorities. It must be stressed, however, that all other categories are also cited, more or less equally, except for ethnic minorities, which come last. Should it be inferred from this that local authorities take the view that responsibility for ethnic minorities lies at a different level, in particular the State?

f.              Are you satisfied with the results of your policy for combating extreme poverty?

Towns seem to be clearly satisfied with the results of their policy for combating extreme poverty. Nevertheless we should point out that some of the questionnaire answers received show this to be more a subjective assessment than the result of a field survey of actual results of actions carried out.

While the action carried out is assessed by the local authorities themselves as "fairly satisfactory" on the whole, cross-referencing the replies indicating satisfaction with the number of inhabitants in municipalities sheds a different light on the matter.  It would appear that the local authorities with 200,000 to 300,000 inhabitants and those with 400,000 to 500,000 inhabitants consider the results "not at all satisfactory".  It may be assumed that the size of those municipalities makes it more difficult to see the results of the action carried out.

g.             Do you consult with partners from civil society to devise and implement initiatives to combat poverty?

According to the examples submitted by the towns, partnership appears to be clearly supported. It forms part of an approach that has already been well developed by many local authorities and meets the needs expressed on the ground, in particular the value of having relays within civil society, in order to tackle extreme poverty more efficiently.

We must nevertheless emphasise that the cross-referencing of the data makes it possible to refine the findings.  It appears "highly significant" that, when the number of inhabitants and partnership with civil society are cross-referenced, that local authorities with 200,000 to 300,000 inhabitants "very frequently" consult with partners from civil society, whereas those with 400,000 to 500,000 inhabitants engage in such consultations only "infrequently".

h.                         The budget in euros allocated to this initiative:

The replies to the question as to the budget allocated by towns have been arranged in six categories of equal size. It should be stressed that the total sum committed by local authorities for action in this field amounts to over 28 billion euros (€28,827,164,491), i.e. an average of over 89 million euros (€89,525,355.56) per municipality. The only merit of these amounts is to show to what extent the local/regional authorities are committed to combating poverty.  It is accordingly timely to ask whether municipalities should pool their experience, particularly in innovation, more efficiently in order to make better use of these substantial sums and so attempt to escape from the simple but nonetheless useful perpetuation of financial redistribution.  One good example is the recent French initiative between two municipalities (Drancy and Le Bourget, with a total of 76,000 inhabitants) whose population's mean income is considered as on the low side.  It focuses on "the right to a balanced meal each day free of charge" for all children during compulsory schooling.  While the annual appropriation required (1.1 million euros) may seem substantial for a total of 3,080 children aged from 6 to 16 years benefiting from this measure, it does not generate any additional real costs for these municipalities.  The loss of receipts is balanced by the savings made from pooling resources between the two towns (refuse collection for example) and the state grant paid to these municipalities to support them in their choice to group together in an urban district community.

4. Main projects pursued as part of this policy:

i.          To help other local authorities draw inspiration from your work, please summarise the main aspects of this action.

Analysis of the data submitted by the authorities confirms the trends already shown in the initial survey in 2003, namely the quality and diversity of actions implemented. It should be noted, however, that this time the action taken has often been described in rather general terms, with some exceptions.  Rather than simply summarising these actions by grouping them into two major categories - those that constitute an immediate response to emergencies, and those aimed at the longer term - we are going to present them in the form of possible recommendations.

It should also be pointed out that, initially, an interim report was drawn up, providing us with a snapshot (via flat tabulation) of the data emerging from the survey.  However, continued analysis for the present final report, in particular by using cross-tabulation, has not enabled us to  highlight any aspects in greater detail.  This situation reflects the point made at the beginning of the report, namely that the results obtained are more like a fresh inventory of action taken than a true monitoring exercise.

These are the factors that can now be used in making recommendations to European towns.

j.          With a view to the preparation of recommendations/resolutions, we highlight eight points:

- action by the authorities:it must be stressed that direct action by the authorities predominates, and that action by charitable organisations comes second. Some authorities have tried the partnership method, whereby action by the authorities and by charitable associations can be brought together. In these cases the results are seen as positive. These are not necessarily ‘delegated’ actions, but are above all truly joint efforts, particularly in the form of a “partnership committee”;

- “dual action”: another form of experiment relates to “dual action”, which involves organising local integration to assist the long-term unemployed or those who find re-integration in the world of work difficult, and linking these actions to humanitarian projects in developing countries. The advantage of these actions is that they give meaning to the lives of those who are excluded, to those who have often lost everything, by suggesting to them not only a way to give themselves a leg up but also how to be in a position to help others in their turn;

- free travel: the free travel initiated by some municipalities for the benefit of the poor and the unemployed is a specific measure that greatly facilitates travel for those for whom going to a job interview very often involves substantial cost;

- free school meals: to guarantee that every child, regardless of their family circumstances, can have at least one balanced meal each day.  This is a means of ensuring a balanced state of health for the local population, from the earliest age.

- food marketing channels: responsible consumption and sustainable development are cited by some towns which have made them an important feature of aid to persons in difficulty. It must be stressed that very often there is a paradox as regards food marketing channels when it comes to helping the poor: food to feed the poor is purchased in hypermarkets (i.e. in the profit-making sector) instead of through the fair-trade (i.e. non-profit-making) sector, which is the one that employs those in the process of integration;

- joint action: “the elimination of poverty involves a shared effort by all parties in the local community”. This approach, cited by authorities in Central Europe, is more than an empty saying in that it attempts to create a partnership between local authorities, NGOs, people and media. The essential factor is to ensure effective co‑ordination by the town council;

- training: training is often cited as a way of helping the excluded and those in extreme poverty. The benefits of such action are not always immediately apparent, but they are real, because they enable a person to rejoin an ongoing process and to acquire the skills and tools that will enable him or her to re-enter a trade or profession with the goal of recovering his or her independence;

- needs assessment:  in general we note that local authorities are frequently compelled to find emergency solutions and so have no choice but to respond in an ad hoc manner through a repetitive aid policy often entailing material or financial aid. It would definitely be more efficient to be able to organise procedures thought through beforehand on the basis of an assessment of needs. This possibility exists, inter alia by using the Concerted development of social cohesion indicators – Methodological guide produced by the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Social Cohesion and designed to facilitate the appropriate study of needs. It must be acknowledged, however, that not everybody knows about this tool, even though it has been designed with great care and covers many parameters; nor is it suitable for small and medium-sized municipalities, which do not have teams of specialised technicians. Such a tool should actually make the evaluation of needs easier, making it possible to adapt and formulate responses geared to the actual situation in and diversity of local authorities.

In conclusion, we would like to state that the issue of extreme poverty in towns could be eradicated once certain solutions were properly implemented.  We realise to what extent "(…) the local elected representatives responsible for social affairs have become (…) managers of short supply, that they have to come up with solutions for fellow citizens in distress (…)[1].  That is why no State can withdraw from its responsibilities in this area, and choosing methods such as the "minimum subsistence income"[2] forms the basis of decent development of the life-forces of European States.  The tools are there, as experiments have demonstrated or suggested, and they go by the names of "integration income" or "active solidarity income"[3].  It is a single mechanism, free of the damaging effects of successive periods of "inactivity/partial activity", replacing the different forms of "minimum welfare" and integrating all the income sources of a household.

Obviously, these solutions alone could never be held up as a panacea for the ills of our European towns but they are responses within the reach of municipalities.

Please fill in ONE sheet per INITIATIVE or PROJECT

Severe poverty: situation in which an individual is excluded from the lifestyle corresponding to the minimum acceptable level in the member State where they live

q 1. yes

q 2. no

————————— €

  ——————— inhabitants

q  1. financial aid

q  2. food aid (staple products, water)

q  3. emergency accommodation

q  4. permanent housing

q  5. health care, hygiene, self-image, help with addictions

q  6. training

q  7. insertion, employment

q  8. recognition and support for minorities

q  9. participation in life in society, citizenship

q 10. education and personalised educational supervision

q 11. raising awareness of responsible consumption

Please tick one or several boxes

q  public authority intervention

q  action by charities

q  "other form of action", please specify overleaf

Please write 1, 2 or 3 in the boxes to indicate priority

(1 indicating the highest priority)

q  teenagers (13-18 years)

q  children (2-12 years)

q  families

q  women on their own

q  migrants

q  ethnic minorities

q  elderly people

q  homeless

q  "other category", please specify overleaf

Please specify the categories targeted by your policy in order of priority by writing a number from 1 to 9 in the boxes.               

 (1 indicating the highest priority)

q 1. very satisfied

q 2. fairly satisfied

q 3. fairly dissatisfied

q 4. not satisfied at all

q 1. very frequently	q 2. fairly frequently
q 3. rarely	q 4. not at all

In all cases, please specify overleaf.

——————— €

You may continue overleaf

SUMMARY TABLE

QUESTIONNAIRES ON POLICIES FOR FIGHTING EXTREME POVERTY

IN TOWNS

TOWNS / REGIONS	COUNTRY
Innsbruck	Austria
Kapfenberg	Austria
Klagenfurt	Austria
Kronstorf	Austria
Radstadt	Austria
Stadt Gmunden	Autria
City of Engis	Belgium
City of Geer	Belgium
City of Braine-L’Alleud	Belgium
City of Charleroi	Belgium
City of Comines-Warneton	Belgium
City of Liège	Belgium
City of Watermael-Boitsfort	Belgium
City of Lessines	Belgium
City of Rochefort	Belgium
City of Seraing	Belgium
City of Soignies	Belgium
City of Blagoevgrad	Bulgaria
City of Dobrich	Bulgaria
City of Smolyan	Bulgaria
City of Brno	Czech Republic
City of Muzlin	Czech Republic
City of Helsinki	Finland
Municipality of Kausala	Finland
Region Morges-Aubonne	France
City of Antibes	France
City of Aubagne	France
City of Audincourt	France
City of Auray	France
City of Aurillac	France
City of Availles-Limouzine	France
City of Avignon	France
City of Ambillou	France
City of Asnières sur Seine	France
City of Barr	France
City of Berck sur Mer	France
City of Béziers	France
City of Blois	France
City of Boulogne	France
City of Bressuire	France
City of Cachan	France
City of Caen	France
City of Cagnes-sur-Mer	France
City of Cannes	France
City of Cany Barville	France
City of Cavaillon	France
City of Chambéry	France
City of Chateauroux	France
City of Cherbourg	France
City of Clermont-Ferrand	France
City of Commercy	France
City of Dorat	France
City of Draguignan	France
City of Dunkerque	France
City of Ensisheim	France
City of Falaise	France
City of Fontenay-le-Fleury	France
City of Fougères	France
City of Fourmies	France
City of Giromagny	France
City of Grasse	France
City of Grenoble	France
City of Guémené-Penfao	France
City of Hagondange	France
City of Haguenau	France
City of Hérouville-Saint-Clair	France
City of Huningue	France
City of Issy-Les-Moulineaux	France
City of Jarnac	France
City of La Ferté-Bernard	France
City of la Rochelle	France
City of La Seyne sur Mer	France
City of Landerneau	France
City of Langres	France
City of Lannion	France
City of Le Teil	France
City of Limoges	France
City of Lorient	France
City of Luz-Saint-Sauveur	France
City of Lyon	France
City of Manom	France
City of Manosque	France
City of Marsannay-la-Côte	France
City of Metz	France
City of Mitry-Mory	France
City of Montmélian	France
City of Mussidan	France
City of Namers	France
City of Nantes	France
City of Narbonnef	France
City of Nice	France
City of Niederbronn-les-bains	France
City of Nîmes	France
City of Nogent sur Oise	France
City of Nyons	France
City of Oullins	France
City of Perenchies	France
City of Peypin	France
City of Piennes	France
City of Plancy L’Abbaye	France
City of Pont-Aven	France
City of Porto-Vecchio	France
City of Porto-Vecchio	France
City of Rennes	France
City of Rezé	France
City of Rheims	France
City of Rochechouart	France
City of Rodez	France
City of Rosheim	France
City of Saint-Amand-Les-Eaux	France
City of Saint-Dié	France
City of Saint-Flour	France
City of Saint-Louis	France
City of Saint-Pierre sur Dives	France
City of Saint-Quention (Aisne)	France
City of Saint-Quentin-Lamotte	France
City of Saint-Sever	France
City of Sarlat	France
City of Sète	France
City of Six-Fours-Les-Plages	France
City of Strasbourg	France
City of Talence	France
City of Thann	France
City of Tourcoing	France
City of Tulle	France
City of Valence	France
City of Vendôme	France
City of Verdun	France
City of Villerupt	France
City of Viviers	France
Gemeinde Ottersweier	Germany
Gemeinde Schönborg	Germany
Stadt Apolda	Germany
Stadt Bad Schönborn	Germany
Stadt Bad Segeberg	Germany
Stadt Baden-Baden	Germany
Stadt Bensheim	Germany
Stadt Bobingen	Germany
Stadt Bremen	Germany
Stadt Duisburg	Germany
Stadt Dülmen	Germany
Stadt Eilenburg	Germany
Stadt Erbach	Germany
Stadt Euskirchen	Germany
Stadt Freiburg	Germany
Stadt Genthin	Germany
Stadt Gießen	Germany
Stadt Glauchau	Germany
Stadt Grevenbroich	Germany
Stadt Grevenbroich	Germany
Stadt Hagenow	Germany
Stadt Hildburghausen	Germany
Stadt Hofheim am Taunus	Germany
Stadt Kaiserslautern	Germany
Stadt Kaiserslautern	Germany
Stadt Kamenz	Germany
Stadt Karlsruhe	Germany
Stadt Köln	Germany
Stadt Konz	Germany
Stadt Lichtenstein	Germany
Stadt Marktgemeinde	Germany
Stadt Münchingen	Germany
Stadt Neunkirchen	Germany
Stadt Rheine	Germany
Stadt Rosenheim	Germany
Stadt Sankt Augustin	Germany
Stadt Stadtrod	Germany
Stadt Stendal	Germany
Stadt Stuttgart	Germany
Stadt Traiskirchen	Germany
Stadt Traunstein	Germany
Stadt Überlingen	Germany
Stadt Ulm	Germany
Stadt Waiblingen	Germany
Stadt Wassenberg	Germany
Stadt Weimar	Germany
Agios Dimitrios	Greece
Larissa	Greece
City of Erd	Hungary
City of Hajduböszörmény	Hungary
City of Szolnok	Hungary
Comune dell’Aquila	Italy
Comune di Albano Laziale	Italy
Comune di Albano Laziale	Italy
Comune di Alpignano	Italy
Comune di Biella	Italy
Comune di Borghetto Santo Spirito	Italy
Comune di Budrio	Italy
Comune di Castellamonte	Italy
Comune di Carpi	Italy
Comune di Cevignola	Italy
Comune di Chieti	Italy
Comune di Cividale del Friuli	Italy
Comune di Domodossola	Italy
Comune di Ferrara	Italy
Comune di Firenze	Italy
Comune di Genzano di Roma	Italy
Comune di Imperia	Italy
Comune di Isola della Scala	Italy
Comune di Latina	Italy
Comune di Montechiarugolo	Italy
Comune di Montefiorino	Italy
Comune di Montesarchio	Italy
Comune di Monza	Italy
Comune di Napoli	Italy
Comune di Nocera Umbra	Italy
Comune di Nola	Italy
Comune di Occimiano	Italy
Comune di Olbia	Italy
Comune di Palma di Montechiaro	Italy
Comune di Picerno	Italy
Comune di Pinerolo	Italy
Comune di Porto Venere	Italy
Comune di Prato	Italy
Comune di Racconigi	Italy
Comune di Salsomaggiore Terme	Italy
Comune di San Dona di Piave	Italy
Comune di Scandiano	Italy
Comune di Schio	Italy
Comune di Sondrio	Italy
Comune di Sorrento	Italy
Comune di Spoleto	Italy
Comune di Taranto	Italy
Comune di Tarquinia	Italy
Comune di Tavarnelle-val-di-pesa	Italy
Comune di Teramo	Italy
Comune di Terno d’Isola	Italy
Comune di Todi	Italy
Comune di Trieste	Italy
Comune di Tromello	Italy
Comune di Venaria Reale	Italy
Comune di Vicenza	Italy
Comune di Viterbo	Italy
Comune di Vittorio Veneto	Italy
Comuni di Collegno e Grugliasco	Italy
Municipality of Aluksnes	Latvia
Municipality of Balvi	Latvia
Municipality of Jekbpils	Latvia
Municipality of Talsi	Latvia
City of Dippach	Luxembourg
City of Echternach	Luxembourg
City of Petange	Luxembourg
City of Saint-Hubert	Luxembourg
Mairie de Monaco	Monaco
City of Grimstad	Norway
City of Brodnica	Poland
City of Bydgoszcz	Poland
City of Dabrowa Gornicza	Poland
City of Debica	Poland
City of Katowice	Poland
City of Kielce	Poland
City of Lomza	Poland
City of Slupsk	Poland
City of Sochaczew	Poland
City of Sosnowiec	Poland
City of Tarnowskie Gory	Poland
City of Almada	Portugal
City of Barcelos	Portugal
City of Evora	Portugal
City of Faro	Portugal
City of Guarda	Portugal
City of Leira	Portugal
City of Mertola	Portugal
City of Ponte da Barca	Portugal
City of Santa Maria da Feira	Portugal
City of Sintra	Portugal
Commune de Campina	Romania
Commune de Drobeta Turnu Severin	Romania
Commune de Mioveni	Romania
City of Alba Iulia	Romania
City of Baia Mare	Romania
City of Brasov	Romania
City of Constanta	Romania
City of Deva	Romania
City of Dorohoi	Romania
City of Focsani	Romania
City of Giurgiu	Romania
City of Iasi	Romania
City of Lupeni	Romania
City of Medias	Romania
City of Mioveni	Romania
City of Odorheiu Secuiesc	Romania
City of Oradea	Romania
City of Piatra Neamt	Romania
City of Primaria	Romania
City of Primaria Bistrita	Romania
City of Primaria Piatra Neamt	Romania
City of Radauti	Romania
City of Rm Valcea	Romania
City of Satu Mare	Romania
City of Sighisoara	Romania
City of Suceava	Romania
City of Zalau	Romania
City of Iujno-Sakhalinks	Russia
City of Kamtchatski	Russia
City of Ossétie	Russia
City of Kaluga	Russia
City of Magnitogorsk	Russia
City of Stavropol	Russia
City of Tomsk	Russia
Ayuntamiento de Baza	Spain
Ayuntamiento de Novelda	Spain
Ayuntamiento de Roquetas de Mar	Spain
Ayuntamiento di Irun	Spain
Ayuntamiento di Soria	Spain
Ayuntamiento di Vitoria-Gasteiz	Spain
Concello de Taboada	Spain
Zaragoza	Spain
City of Borlänge	Sweden
City of Gnesta	Sweden
City of Hällefors	Sweden
City of Markaryd	Sweden
City of Nacka	Sweden
City of Sölvesborg	Sweden
City of Allschwil	Switzerland
City of Brugg	Switzerland
City of Genève	Switzerland
City of Lichtensteig	Switzerland
City of Luzern	Switzerland
City of Mendrisio	Switzerland
City of Moudon	Switzerland
City of Neuchâtel	Switzerland
City of Sierre	Switzerland
City of Zurich	Switzerland
City of Amsterdam	The Netherlands
City of Bergen op Zoom	The Netherlands
City of Groningen	The Netherlands
City of Hillegom	The Netherlands
City of Leerdam	The Netherlands
City of Niymegen	The Netherlands
City of Rotterdam	The Netherlands
City of Waaluyk	The Netherlands
City of Adiyaman	Turkey
City of Alanya	Turkey
City of Altan Ersin	Turkey
City of Anamur	Turkey
City of Corum	Turkey
City of Diyarbakir	Turkey
City of Elazig	Turkey
City of Kililtepe	Turkey
City of Nevsehir	Turkey
City of Nusaybin	Turkey
City of Osmaniye	Turkey
City of Sincan	Turkey
City of Yenimahalle	Turkey
Aberdeen	United Kingdom
Aberdeenshire Council	United Kingdom
Bristol City Council	United Kingdom
Chester	United Kingdom
Deal (Kent)	United Kingdom
Keswick Town Council	United Kingdom
Rochdale	United Kingdom
South Tyneside Council	United Kingdom
Wear Valley	United Kingdom
West Dunbartonshire	United Kingdom
Wincanton	United Kingdom