Strasbourg, 2 September 2009                                                            CDLR(2009)35

Item 6.3 of the agenda

                                                                                                                         

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

DRAFT REPORT ON THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BUDAPEST AGENDA

BY MEMBER STATES

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the Directorate General of

Democracy and Political Affairs

Directorate of Democratic Institutions

This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.

Introduction

This document (see Appendix) contains the draft for the report on the implementation of the Budapest Agenda, as revised at the Valencia Ministerial Conference. It is based on the information submitted by member States, either through specific questionnaires or in the context of the annual consultation about “frontline issues of change” at domestic level. The report contains an analysis of the available information and some indicative conclusions. It is supplemented by three separate Addenda that contain background information, based on the actual replies received.

Action required

The CDLR is invited to review and approve this document, and agree to submit it to the 16th session of the Ministerial Conference.  

Appendix

Draft report on implementation of
the Budapest Agenda by member States

Table of Contents

Introduction I.         Frontline issues of change in the field of local and regional democracy II.       Actions undertaken by member States in respect of the challenges             identified in the Budapest Agenda III.      Follow-up given to the Council of Europe’s acquis on local and regional             democracy IV.       Conclusions
Addendum I: Frontline issues of change in the field of local and regional democracy
Table A – Main table Table B – Summary table
Addendum II: Actions undertaken by member States in respect of the challenges identified in the Budapest Agenda
Table A – Main table Table B – Summary table Table C – Mutual influence of the CDLR’s work and national legislation
Addendum III: Follow-up given to the Council of Europe’s acquis on local and regional democracy
Table A – Standard specific table Table B – Country specific table

Introduction

In Budapest, in February 2005, European Ministers agreed the common objective of Delivering Good Local and Regional Governance and adopted the Budapest Agenda. Ministers agreed to pursue their common objective both through co-operation within the Council of Europe and at the level of the individual member States. The current report takes stock of the steps and measures taken by individual member States.

The Budapest Agenda enumerates four general themes each with major challenges and actions to be taken. In Valencia in October 2007, ministers prioritised the themes and challenges, resulting in the Agenda which reads as follows:

Theme A: Legal Framework and Institutional Structure

1. Giving full effect to the principle of subsidiarity by defining and legislating on the competences, structures and boundaries of local and regional authorities; 2. Fostering effective relations between different levels of territorial administration, particularly between central and local authorities; 3. Encouraging and creating the necessary conditions for intermunicipal co-operation.

Theme B: Democratic Participation and Public Ethics at Local and Regional Level

1. Responding to the changing ways in which citizens engage in public life at local level and, in some cases, the decreasing willingness to do so; 2. Ensuring ethical behaviour by local and regional authorities, elected representatives and officials, whilst respecting local and regional self-government as well as individual rights and legitimate interests; 3. Addressing the low level of electoral turnout in elections at local and regional level in many countries; 4. Broadening the scope for participation by foreign residents in public life at local level.

Theme C: Local and Regional Finance and Public Services

1. Reaching a level of resources for local and regional authorities which is commensurate with their responsibilities; 2. Finding an optimum structure of income sources in order to allow local and regional authorities to offer their citizens services which are adapted to their requirements; 3. Fostering the leadership and capacity of local and regional authorities to deliver good local and regional governance and providing citizens with services of the highest possible quality while respecting budgetary constraints; 4. Striking the right balance between a high degree of freedom for local and regional authorities in managing their finance and a high degree of accountability.

Theme D: Transfrontier and Interterritorial Co-operation

1. Finding ways and means of providing territorial communities or authorities and their transfrontier co-operation bodies with the capacity necessary to engage in and develop co-operation; 2. Removing remaining legal and administrative obstacles to transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation; 3. Establishing a clear and effective legal framework for institutionalised co-operation between territorial communities or authorities (euro-regions).

The information about the steps and measures undertaken by member States that correspond to the themes, challenges and actions identified in the Budapest Agenda was collected through a range of questionnaires.

In 2009, 30 member states replied to the questionnaire “Frontline Issues of Change in the field of Local and Regional Democracy Across Council of Europe Member States”, 26 to the questionnaire “Actions undertaken by member States in respect of the challenges identified in the Budapest Agenda”, and 21 to the questionnaire “Follow-up given to the Council of Europe’s Acquis on local and regional democracy further to the commitments of the Budapest Agenda”. The Addenda to this report contain a summary of the replies and summary tables pertaining to each of the three questionnaires. Some of the main points are set out below. It should be borne in mind that the report was based exclusively on the replies given by the member states.

I.         Frontline issues of change in the field of local and regional democracy

Member states reported (recently achieved, current or ongoing) topics or measures as well as the respective time frame and a statement on their political importance and technical complexity according to the four main themes of the Budapest Agenda. In the Addendum I to this report, each measure has been furthermore assigned to one of the challenges of the Budapest Agenda. Thus the report gives a global picture of the frontline issues of change organised both by theme and by challenge.  

In total, participating member states reported on 164 measures for responding to the challenges of the four themes of the Budapest Agenda. The economic crisis, gender equality, communal police, and tolerance and inclusion appear as new challenges being addressed. Frontline issues under the theme Local and Regional Finance and Public Services had the highest number of measures (47), closely followed by frontline issues under the theme Legal Framework and Institutional Structure, with 46 measures. Thirty eight measures were addressed under the theme Democratic Participation and Public Ethics, with almost half of them aimed at increasing citizen participation in the local decision-making process. Thirty three measures were in place to address transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation, of which at least 16 were driven by EU initiatives.

A.       Legal Framework and Institutional Structure

46 measures were identified under this main theme. The first challenge of giving full effect to the principle of subsidiarity largely dominated, with 36 measures. The main frontline issue was reform and reorganisation efforts at local level, dealt with by thirteen member states.

The second highest issue was the general work to advance decentralisation and the modernisation of local and regional administration (seven member states). Three member states were preparing reforms for addressing the high or increasing number of municipalities and communities. Four member states were undertaking reforms at regional level, two were addressing local elections and legitimacy.

Six measures were in place to respond to the second challenge of fostering effective relations between different levels of territorial administration. Attempts to strengthen relations between local and regional level were undertaken by three member states, while attempts to strengthen relations between central and local, central and regional, as well as at the interregional level had each been addressed by one member state.

Intermunicipal co-operation, the third challenge under this theme, was a frontline issue for two member states. Working conditions in local authorities and the establishment of a local police were new challenges, each addressed by one member state.

B.       Democratic Participation and Public Ethics

Thirty eight measures were reported under this main theme. The first challenge of responding to the changing ways in which citizens engage in public life predominated with 20 measures. The main frontline issue within the first challenge concerns general attempts to increase citizen participation in the decision-making process at local level (17 member states), whereas three member states responded with new approaches for increasing electoral participation.

Nine measures addressed the second challenge of ensuring ethical behaviour of local and regional authorities. The fight against corruption was explicitly addressed by three member states whilst six responded to the second challenge with new or more stringent Codes of Ethics.

Three member states responded to the third challenge of low level of electoral turnout. The challenge of broadening the scope for participation by foreign residents in public life at local level was addressed by four member states. Two member states identified new frontline issues not falling under the Budapest challenges. One was the challenge of gender equality, the other tolerance and inclusion.

Six member states did not identify frontline issues under this theme.

C.       Local and Regional Finance and Public Services

Forty seven measures were reported under this main theme. Ten member states mentioned financial decentralisation and "déconcentration", whilst seven indicated attempts to identify new financial instruments and non-fiscal sources of revenue. Equalisation was addressed by seven member states, three member states were working on reforming finance and service delivery, while another was strengthening institutions mandated to solve problems of local finance. The reform of financing mechanisms was a “frontline issue” in one member state, whilst two work on e-government solutions, one on the extension of services, and four tackle balancing quality standards and efficiency.

Auditing was addressed by two member states, and accountancy by three. Two member states responded by restricting the scope of action of local authorities, such as the capacity to take financial risks.

Tackling the financial crisis was identified as a new challenge and was a frontline issue for three member states, whilst one took measures to respond to emergencies in general.

Two member states did not identify frontline issues under this theme.

D.       Transfrontier and Inter-territorial Co-operation

Thirty three measures were reported under this main theme. Only one member state responded to the first challenge, addressing the capacity necessary to engage in and develop co-operation. It implemented capacity building measures to increase participation in EU funding opportunities.

Four member states reported on agreements and international treaties drawn up to meet the second challenge of removing remaining legal and administrative obstacles to transfrontier co-operation, three were also reforming national legislation. Action under the EU structural funds was a frontline issue for two member states. One member state develops cross-border co-operation instruments.

The third challenge, establishing a clear and effective legal framework for institutionalised co-operation, was predominant among the member states. Whilst the Euroregions and the Madrid Outline Convention were frontline issues for four member states only, twelve of the EU member states were preoccupied with the European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation, making this the main frontline issue under the Budapest theme of transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation.

Two of the Benelux states had taken measures concerning the Benelux Convention. Four member mentioned general measures but gave no further specifications.

Eight member states did not identify frontline issues under this theme.

II.       Actions undertaken by member States in respect of the challenges          identified in the Budapest Agenda

Addendum II shows the actions taken by the member States under the Budapest Agenda. Within the Budapest themes and the Budapest Challenges, the table divides action into groups and highlights salient examples. For the first time, the questionnaire included questions on the mutual influence of the work of the committee and national legislation, i.e. if or to what extent the work of the committee was taken into consideration for drafting national legislation, and if or to what extent experience of national legislation played a part in the drafting of the Committee’s documents.

In strictly quantitative terms the theme Democratic Participation and Public Ethics at Local and Regional Level received most attention, with 100 actions. The theme Legal Framework and Institutional Structure was addressed with 92 actions and thus took second place. Member States reported on 75 actions under the Theme of Local and Regional Finance and Public Services. Finally, challenges within the theme Transfrontier and Inter-territorial Co-operation was addressed by 58 actions. 

In total, there were 68 cases where it was felt that the work of the Committee was helpful for preparing national legislation. In 51 cases it was considered that national legislation was taken into account in Council of Europe acquis. Thus, the work of the Committee was considered helpful in 63% of the cases, whereas it was felt that national legislation was taken into account for the drawing up the acquis in 47% of the cases. 85% of the member States reported that the Council of Europe’s acquis influenced national legislation at least once (i.e. at least in one Budapest scheme), whereas 70% of the member States reported that national legislation influenced the acquis at least once. The Council of Europe’s acquis was predominantly mentioned under the Budapest theme Legal Framework and Institutional Structure. 20 out of 27 member states considered it important and 16 out of 27 member states felt their national legislation had played a role in drawing up the acquis. Under the Budapest theme Transfrontier and Interterritorial Co-operation 14 member states stated that the Committee’s work had been useful in drafting national legislation and 10 out of 27 member states felt their national legislation had played a role in drawing up the acquis.

III.      Follow up given to the Council of Europe’s acquis on local and regional     democracy

The Council of Europe’s acquis in the field of local and regional democracy was added to by four new Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations. Recommendations Rec(2007)4 on local and regional public services and Rec(2007)12 on capacity building at local and regional level fall under the third Budapest theme and have been promoted and/or used by five states each. Recommendation Rec(2007)5 on the conclusion of transfrontier co-operation agreements in South-Eastern Europe under the fourth Budapest theme has been promoted by one member State only. Recommendation Rec(2009) on the evaluation, auditing and monitoring of participation and participation policies at local and regional level was adopted only early in 2009 and was not included in the survey.

The information base on the theme Legal framework and institutional structure entails four additional documents on local authority competences in Europe (promoted and/or used by six member States), on European practice and recent developments in the field of regional self-government (four member States), on good practices in intermunicipal co-operation (six member States), and on the relationship between central and local authorities (four member States).  New information documents under the theme Local and regional finance and public services were added on internal audit at local and regional level, accounting rules and practice at local level and on performance management at local level, each having been promoted and/or made use of by two member states to date.

Since the last ministerial conference, six more member states reported making use or promoting the acquis, seven member states which had started already made increased use of it. In strictly quantitative terms, the acquis (standards and information documents) has been further promoted or made use of 325 times by a total of thirteen member states. Thus, the total usage of the acquis has increased by 28%[1] Eight member States obtained a total of 19 feedbacks on the acquis, increasing the total number of feedback received to 76. There were 80 new translations of documents belonging to the acquis.

On the basis of all 47 member states, the standards have been translated in 12% of the cases, published in 17%, actively disseminated in 10% and made use of in 13% of the cases. The overall possible promotion and usage (i.e. translation, publication (in either form), active dissemination, and utilisation) in the 47 member states is only 13%.

IV.       Conclusions

Drawing qualitative conclusions from the questionnaires poses two general problems. Firstly, not all member states replied to the questionnaire which means that it is not possible to draw a picture covering all member States. Secondly, responses by the member states were unequal in length and and degree of detail, no doubt resulting from the fact that the questionnaire left these points to member States to decide.

It is also difficult to draw qualitative conclusions from a quantitative analysis. For example, the number of measures reported to address frontline issues under Budapest theme C exceeds the number of measures reported in respect of Budapest themes A and B having a higher priority. Thus there appears to be no linear relationship between the number of activities member States undertake and the degree of priority given to them.

A certain discrepancy seems to appear when comparing the average political importance given to the themes in the “frontline issues of change” and the priority in accordance with which the themes have been organised in the Budapest Agenda. Thus, average political importance is higher under Budapest theme C (1.6 = between “very high” and “high”) than under Budapest theme B (2.16 = slightly below “high”). However, as not all the same member States participated in the the two exercises, it is difficult to draw any conclusion on that point.

The overall picture that arises from this survey is that member States are taking many measures that correspond to the themes, challenges and actions of the Budapest Agenda. However, this is not to say that the steps were taken as a result of the Budapest Agenda. Rather it should be concluded that the Budapest Agenda, beyond its role in setting an agenda for co-operation within the Council of Europe, managed to give a framework within which a wide range of measures taken by individual member can be gathered and presented coherently at European level. This overview will help guide the new Utrecht Agenda that ministers are to adopt at their 16th Session and contribute to the awareness that all member States of the Council of Europe are working towards delivering good local and regional governance to all citizens.

With regard to the mutual influence between the acquis and national legislation, the following main conclusion can be drawn.

The total utilisation rate of the acquis at only 13% (23% looking at respondent states only) is low and falls short of the ambitions expressed in the Budapest Agenda. More needs to be done in future years, no doubt starting with a closer analysis of the reasons for this shortfall.

There is also a relative inconsistency between the reported influence of the acquis on national legislation and the follow-up given to the acquis. Eight member states reported that the acquis had influenced legislation but did not report any follow-up to the CoE standards under the respective Budapest-Themes. Three member states that considered the acquis helpful did not report any follow-up to it.

This raises questions about the consistency between the responses to different questionnaires and probably suggests that in future consolidated questionnaires should be used to gather the necessary information from member States.