Strasbourg, 1 October 2012 CDLR-Bu(2012)20

Item 6 of the agenda

BUREAU OF THE

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON TOPICAL ISSUES

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the

Directorate of Democratic Governance, Culture and Diversity

Democracy, Institution-Building and Governance Department

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

The Terms of Reference require the CDLR to “exchange information, views and good practice among its members, observers and participants on intergovernmental issues concerning local and regional democracy and crossborder cooperation”. At its last meeting, four delegations put forward topics for an exchange of views: Estonia and Portugal suggested an exchange of views on issues related to local finance and budgetary practices at local level; the Netherlands suggested a debate on the issue of management of local and regional authorities and Italy invited a discussion on citizens' and local authorities' consultation procedures and practices in the planning of major infrastructural projects having territorial impact.

At its meeting on 29 June the Bureau discussed the outcome of this exchange of views and decided that the topics put forward by the delegations of Estonia and Italy should have a follow-up. Ms Paqui Santonja suggested as a new topic for discussion the recent measures adopted to reduce public expenditure.

Infrastructural projects

The Italian delegation welcomes a plenary debate on the suggested topic and the delegation is willing to introduce it. The Italian delegation agreed to disseminate the document of the CDLR meeting of last April whitout changes.

The April document and results of the questionnaire are presented in the appendix (appendix I and III). The April document could be modified if the Bureau so wishes.

Measures adopted to reduce public expenditure

It was suggested to introduce as a new topic for discussion the recent measures adopted in some members States to reduce public expenditure including through changes to the territorial organisation, local and regional authorities’ competences and finance. The Exchange of views could provide the CDLR information on the different measures and its impact on the territorial organisation and local/regional democracy.

The Bureau is invited to accentuate the elements for discussion and to give instructions for inviting delegations to introduce the topic.

Local finance

The Estonian questionnaire on local finance was discussed by the Bureau at its meeting of 29 June. The Bureau stated that the Estonian questions on local finance addresses a core task of the CDLR, but the Bureau felt that its length and level of details would make it difficult for member states to respond and that as a consequence a low response would be the outcome.

The Bureau therefore suggested that the Secretariat would explore with the Estonian delegation which method could be used best to answer the questions raised by Estonia. If the Estonian delegation would prefer a questionnaire sent to the CLDRL members it should agree on a shorter questionnaire focusing on the core questions of the Estonian government. If the Estonian delegation would be of the opinion that this would not be possible the Bureau suggested at its meeting that this kind of detailed information could be best obtained at a CDLR debate or, if very specific, through the Rapid response service.

In its response the Estonian delegation indicated that it would prefer to use the Rapid response service. The delegation prepared a draft questionnaire which is included in the appendix (II).

The Secretariat believes that the questions prepared by the Estonian delegation are too extensive for a successful use of the Rapid response service. The Secretariat feels that it might be useful to have a discussion on the topic in the CDLR at its next meeting. The Estonian delegation could be invited to introduce the debate and at its end the delegation could ask the CDLR if a follow-up by an in-depth questionnaire would be considered as useful.

Action required

The Bureau is invited to comment, to give instructions and guidance to the Secretariat with a view to have a successful exchange of views held at the next CDLR meeting (19-20 November 2012).

APPENDIX I

Strasbourg, 19 March 2012 CDLR(2012)6

Item 10 of the agenda

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

FIRST EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND GOOD PRACTICES

ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES CONCERNING LOCAL AND

REGIONAL DEMOCRACY AND CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION

For participation and exchange

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the

Directorate of Democratic Governance, Culture and Diversity

Democracy, Institution-Building and Governance Department

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

The recently adopted Terms of Reference require the CDLR to “exchange information, views and good practice among its members, observers and participants on intergovernmental issues concerning local and regional democracy and crossborder cooperation”. At its last meeting, the Bureau agreed to have the first such exchange of views at the present meeting of the CDLR and to invite delegations to make suggestions as to the themes to be discussed.

Four delegations put forward proposals as follows: Estonia and Portugal suggested an exchange of views on issues related to local finance and budgetary practices at local level; the Netherlands suggested a debate on the issue of management of local and regional authorities and Italy invited a discussion on citizens' and local authorities' consultation procedures and practices in the planning of major infrastructural projects having territorial impact. The detailed proposals of the four delegations appear at the Appendix.

The Bureau agreed that the these topics be debated at the present meeting of the CDLR as follows: firstly, the management if local and regional authorities, introduced by the Netherlands, secondly, local finance introduced by Estonia and Portugal and thirdly consultation procedures introduced by Italy. As this issues comes third, it may be right that the exchange continues at the next CDLR meeting.

In order for the discussion to be fruitful and enriching for all delegations, it is suggested to proceed as follows.

1 Delegations that have made the proposal make introductory statements. Written materials, if available, will be circulated to all delegations preferably in advance of the meeting. PowerPoint presentations, or similar, are possible and welcome.

2 CDLR delegations prepare themselves for the discussion, having regard to the issues or questions raised by the proponent delegations, and bring to the meeting relevant information or documentation. If available in time, these materials can be disseminated among delegations.

3 The exchange of views is summarised in the meeting report and possible follow up is decided by the CDLR at the close of the discussion.

4 The chair of the CDLR opens and moderates the discussion.

Action required

CDLR members are invited to prepare for and take part in the exchanges of views on (a) management of local and regional authorities, (b) local finance and budgetary practice at local level and (c) citizens’ and local authorities' consultation procedures and practices, having regard to the modalities listed above.

Appendix

Proposal from Estonia

We would like to propose an exchange of views regarding how are the Member States of the European Council ensuring and implementing norms described in Article 9 (para 1-5) of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. This is a larger task that can’t be performed via Tour de Table or any other form of discussion, hence the topic requires a deeper analysis in written regarding the ways of implementation the aforementioned paragraphs in Member States. The exchange of views could be in a form of a questionnaire – paragraph by paragraph - and would have an added value in Member States as it helps to compare approaches of Member States through different ways of fulfilling the criteria agreed upon.

Such interest in this topic derives from the need to have a concrete overview how these criteria are fulfilled. For example paragraph 2 which stipulates “Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law” raises a question whether the norm prescribes its implementation via generating standardized cost models for all or some services (i.e. calculating the implementation cost of a certain task for a single local government that enables to assess whether the local government respective revenues are sufficiently covered from the block-grant system), establishing norms on providing services or setting service standards for all local public services etc.

European Charter of Local Self-Government

Article 9 – Financial resources of local authorities

Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.

Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law.

Part at least of the financial resources of local authorities shall derive from local taxes and charges of which, within the limits of statute, they have the power to determine the rate.

The financial systems on which resources available to local authorities are based shall be of a sufficiently diversified and buoyant nature to enable them to keep pace as far as practically possible with the real evolution of the cost of carrying out their tasks.

The protection of financially weaker local authorities calls for the institution of financial equalisation procedures or equivalent measures which are designed to correct the effects of the unequal distribution of potential sources of finance and of the financial burden they must support. Such procedures or measures shall not diminish the discretion local authorities may exercise within their own sphere of responsibility.

Kaur Kaasik-Aaslav

Ministry of the Interior

Proposal from Portugal

Here goes the Portuguese answer about “Echanges de vues”: for us would have interest to discuss some issues related to the local finance and (good) budgetary practices at the local level. Among other topics we would like to discuss:

- Borrowing limits;

- Recovery of local and regional authorities in financial difficulties;

- Best practices of local budgeting;

- Local government owned enterprises.

Sonia Ramalhinho

Directorate-General of Local Authorities

Proposal from The Netherlands

The Dutch delegation proposes to exchange views on the topic of ‘Management of local and regional authorities’.

All member states face governmental cuts and therefore all governments are interested in a less expensive and more efficient management of the public sector. The Council of Europe's Strategy on Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level, in Principle 3 (Efficiency and Effectiveness), also refers to making the best use of available resources and measuring its effectiveness.

The Netherlands has developed a tool called “Windows for Management in Local Government” that provides insight for managers into the management of their organisation and have effective discussions about ambitions, choices to be made and areas of improvement. The tool exists of two researches: a factual research in which concrete performance of management is to be measured based on 30 performance indicators. The second research focuses on the experience of employees. Combining the results from these two research activities gives indications in which way and where improvements should be made.

The Netherlands is willing to give a presentation on this topic and is interested in benefiting from any experiences from other countries in this field. Therefore, we would very much appreciate an exchange of views on this topic.

Auke van der Goot

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Proposal from Italy

Implementation of major public works projects in critical regions: the boundaries of social consensus and of economic development of higher-tier authorities

In Italy, it is often difficult to reach decisions about the location of major infrastructure projects or the implementation of measures which involve or might involve costs for local authorities.

Examples include projects such as the building of the Turin – Lyon railway line, which is also an issue abroad, the very lengthy discussions about the building of the Messina bridge (between Calabria and Sicily) and decisions concerning the establishment of safe sites for the disposal of nuclear waste (eg, Squinzano Jonico) or even ordinary landfill sites for municipal waste (Naples).

The difficulty is due in part to the existence of different levels of central and local government – the latter having its own functions with constitutionally guaranteed autonomy – which means that decisions concerning local authorities demand consultation and various forms of agreement between central and local government.

In the above-mentioned cases, the local communities concerned have seen the development – with varying degrees of organisation – of various types of opposition to the proposed projects, which has sometimes even been very radical.

From this point of view, Italy is perhaps an example of the trend referred to in international literature as nimbyism (not in my back yard syndrome).

One of the reasons for this trend possibly lies in the lack of codified procedures in the information and decision-making phases: consideration is being given here to introducing a law in Italy like the (French) law on public consultation and debate.

Italy therefore calls on the other member countries of the CDLR to focus their attention on the location of major public works projects in specific regions. In particular:

Have you experienced difficulties of the kind described above? How were they dealt with in relation to institutional dialogue and to the social climate with the communities concerned?

Decision-making: how many levels and which ones? Difficulties? Are there formalised procedures in your country?

How was involvement of the local communities in the information and decision-making phases organised?

Between local interests and supranational interests: Local democracy, yes, of course, but what if it conflicts with supranational democracy?

Francesco GIUSTINO

Department for Regional Affairs

Presidency of the Council of Ministers

APPENDIX II

Article 9 of the European Charter of local Self-Government (ECLSG) concerns the financial resources of local authorities.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 read as follows: “Local authorities shall be entitled, within national economic policy, to adequate financial resources of their own, of which they may dispose freely within the framework of their powers.

Local authorities' financial resources shall be commensurate with the responsibilities provided for by the constitution and the law.”

a) In your country, how are state tasks and local authorities’ tasks defined and differenciated: in the constitution; in general terms by the law on local self-government; specifically, for each area devolved to local authorities, in sectoral laws covering eg primary education, health care, etc.

Service/Derives from	Constitution		General terms by the law on local self-government		Sectoral law		Other
	State	Local	State	Local	State	Local	State	Local
Social services and benefits
Waste management
Primary education
Health care
Leisure and culture
Roads and public transport

a) Do LG-s fulfil also state tasks? If yes, then how are they differenciated from the local tasks (e.g. contract, transfer from state budget which differs from regular LG transfer for LG tasks etc.)

b) In order to make local authorities’ financial resources “commensurate with the responsibilities” conferred upon them, what is the approach followed in your country:

a) adoption of standardized cost models for all or some services (i.e. calculating the implementation cost of a certain task for a single local government that enables to assess whether the local government respective revenues are sufficiently covered from the block-grant system)?

b) establishment of norms on providing services?

c) setting service standards for all local public services?

d) a combination of the above?

e) Other?

f) Are these approaches imposed centrally or agreed upon locally, are they legally binding or recommended. Are those more oriented on performance management or as part of local government financing system?

g) Do mechanisms or procedures exist to review and monitor the fulfilment of norms and standards? Who and how monitors them?

c) Do mechanisms or procedures exist in order to provide a forum at which central government and local authorities’ representatives can discuss these issues and agree (with binding or not binding effect) on the size, type, rates etc. of resources allocated to local authorities? What is the object of these negotiations/ agreements (local government revenue base, taxes, equalization fund, specific grants etc)

d) What is the proportion of allocations in LG budgets? What is the proportion of state allocation which is earmarked? How much flexibility do LG-s have within the earmarked grant/allocation?

Which services are these allocations bound to? Are these grants central government support to local tasks or is it intended for financing those locally implemented tasks which in nature are in state competence?

APPENDIX III

Italian questionnaire

Dear CDLR members,

At the last CDLR meting of 2-3 April 2012, the Committee held a debate on the subject of implementation of major public works projects in critical regions and, in relation to this, the boundaries of social consensus and of economic development of higher-tier authorities.

The subject was introduced by the Italian delegation to the CDLR, by referring to the situation in Italy, where it is often difficult to reach consensual decisions about the location of major infrastructure projects or the implementation of measures which involve or might involve costs for local authorities (footnote 1). The difficulty is due in part to the existence of different levels of central and local government – the latter having its own functions with constitutionally guaranteed autonomy, meaning that decisions concerning local authorities demand consultation and various forms of agreement between central and local government. The introduction of a new law in Italy on public consultation and debate is currently under consideration.

As agreed at the meeting, you will find below the list of particular questions posed by the Italian delegation.

You are kindly asked to respond to them either

a) by stating how issues are dealt with in your country specifically, or

b) by providing more general comments where appropriate.

Answers should be submitted by email to the Secretariat and copied to all CDLR members (by simply replying to all the recipients of this email).

You are kindly requested to reply by 6 July 2012.

The Secretariat will analyse all answers received and on that basis a number of particularly pertinent issues will be suggested to become subject to more in-depth discussions at the next CDLR meeting.

QUESTIONS

Question 1

Have you experienced in your country difficulties when decisions relating to major public works needed to be taken? Can you describe which type of difficulties (lack of interest in the project, refusal to provide information, interference from non-institutional parties…) and how they have been dealt with (setting up a framework for discussion, extended information and consultation procedures, extension of delays…).

Question 2

Can you describe the decision-making mechanisms or procedures to be followed in your country as regards major public works projects: what is a “major” public work project, how is its impact on the territory evaluated, which tiers of government are involved, how are decisions arrived at?

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Question 4

What is the general approach adopted in your country when local and supranational interests do not coincide or enter into conflict with each other? Does or should local democracy have supremacy over supranational democracy (footnote 2)?

Footnote 1

Footnote 2

EU member states are particularly concerned by this question.

We thank you for your cooperation.

Kind regards,

The CDLR Secretariat

Responses to the Italian questionnaire

CZECH REPUBLIC

Question 1

- Yes, difficulties appear very often, almost always when intent or even a decision relating such a major public work is announced. These problems usually consist in resistance of concerned subjects (inhabitants of the neighbourhood area, territorial communities, environmental or other civic initiatives) that can delay, endanger or even dash the plans.

- Recent examples:

o Vodochody Airport – an attempt of a private investment company to built a second Prague international airport by a transformation of a small civil airfield north of Prague; local referendums were held in 11 surrounding municipalities, all with a clearly negative result; at the moment, the project is passing through the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure at the Ministry of Environment, the intent is to start the operation of the international airport in 2015.

o Intent to create a new dump of radioactive wastes – 7 localities were selected as eligible areas but almost all municipalities inside these areas expressed negative standpoint by their bodies; some of them however try to negotiate with state authorities to obtain a higher financial compensation if they agree with placing it within their territory.

o Project to create a new dam in Nove Herminovy (North Moravia) – decided by the Government in 2008, positive EIA received in April 2012; a part of the municipality will be flooded and some houses expropriated for compensation; citizens of the municipality expressed a negative opinion in local referendum but the Government decision is binding.

o Project for a new field of wind power stations, project to build a new corridor for highway.

- Such major projects must be made public and discussed in advance, usually by means of a public meeting, website on internet or thematic working groups (according to the Act No. 100/2001 Coll., on EIA, as amended); if the project is proposed by a municipality or a region, there are further requirements and possibilities in this area in respective legislation (especially in Act No. 128/2000 Coll., on Municipalities, as amended, Act No. 129/2000 Coll., on Regions, as amended, Act No. 131/2000 Coll., on the Capital City of Prague, as amended).

Question 2

- Decision-making and procedural mechanismsthat must be followed in such cases are rather complicated and are covered with a lot of legislative acts. General ones are contained mainly in Act No. 500/2004 Coll., Administrative Procedure Code, as amended, Act No. 137/2006 Coll., on Public Procurement, as amended, and in the above mentioned “territorial” legislation (Acts on Municipalities, on Regions, on the Capital City of Prague). In addition, there are specialised laws in particular sectors (transport, infrastructure, environment, construction, mining, regional development) that are also to be taken into account and followed. Among them, Act on EIA and Act No. 183/2006 Coll., Building Code, as amended, seem to be the most important.

- There is no legal definition of a “major” public work. Nevertheless, Act on Public Procurement can be taken as a clue – it defines different procedural rules for different types of projects, depending on their financial value, type of the order and contract owner (the State, territorial self-governing unit, sectoral contractor); the higher the value is, the stricter conditions have to be followed; e. g., the value for “an over-limit” order in the field of construction works is approx. 146,5 mil. Czech Crowns (1 EUR = approx. 25 CZK).

- The impact on the territory is evaluated, in a great detail, mainly according to the Act on EIA, each territorial unit concerned (municipality, region) must furthermore discuss and, eventually, modify its own plan of territorial development.

- Involvement of particular levels of government depends on the size or extent of the project. They may act as decision-making administrative authorities or as subjects concerned.

- The decision-making process within the territorial self-governing authorities is realised by respective decision-making bodies (municipal or regional council, municipal or regional board, municipal or regional office).

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

- Rules for involvement of local communities are regulated by above mentioned general or specific acts (especially Act on Municipalities, Act on Regions, Act on the Capital City of Prague, Administrative Procedure Code, Act on EIA, Building Code, Act No. 254/2001 Coll., Water Code, as amended) and differ in dependence on the nature of the project and the role of the subject in question. E. g., residents are entitled to express their opinion as citizens of the municipality or region (they are authorised to take part in the meetings of a municipal or regional council; to require that a matter is discussed at such a meeting; to receive information on important local or regional matters – public notice-board, electronic access; to submit proposals, petitions, complaints, comments or suggestions); moreover, the “public concerned” has to be involved during the public part of the environmental impact assessment (public announcement, public discussion, specific consultation, comments, opinions, suggestions); furthermore, it is possible to request information according to general Act on Free Access to Information (Act No. 106/1999 Coll., as amended) or specific Act on the Right for Information on Environment (Act No. 123/1998 Coll., as amended). In administrative procedures, these subjects can have the position of “participant” or “person concerned” under certain conditions and therefore to influence the process from this title.

Question 4

- According to the Constitution, the State may interfere into activities of territorial self-government authorities only on the basis of law (specifying the way, extent and purpose of such interference). On the other hand, as public-law corporations, the self-governing authorities are always bound by legislative rules. In all cases, an agreement among all involved parties (the State, local or regional self-government, investor) is a preferable solution. If it is not possible, the situation has to be solved according to respective material and procedural legal rules, with a decisive role of state authorities. Some cases, especially those involving extreme legal means (e. g. expropriation), may be decided by an independent court in the final stage.

Footnote 1

Footnote 2

EU member states are particularly concerned by this question.

FINLAND

QUESTIONS

These replies are very general and try to illustrate situation by some concrete projects, but also these comments are very generalist by nature.

Question 1

Typical cases causing some challenges are big national projects: as an example, during last few years, two big decisions has been made of building new nuclear power station and extension of metro line from Helsinki to Espoo.

What comes to nuclear energy, there has been a big debate pro and contra and it is not always easy, because it is globally very big issue and sufficient energy supply is also very essential to Finnish industry. For local level, decision of building a nuclear station means a lot of workers in that area and also increase of tax income and perhaps number of inhabitants in this area is likely to rise. Because of that, there is strong competition between willing municipalities to obtain that project into their area.

Metro discussion has been mostly about usual debate of how financing is shared between State and municipalities. Question of State money is important also from regional point of view – is it needed to the metropolitan area on expense of regions and their projects? How is it possible to objectively evaluate national level need for project? Cost-benefit analysis is commonly used in traffic projects and results are reliable, but priority lists can be changed in political processes. PPP financing has been introduced in motorway case Helsinki-Lahti some years ago as a tool to fasten implementation of highly prioritized project.

Somehow preparations have not always been very good at comparing real alternatives to some projects, for example tramway line as an alternative for metro line. In complex issues it is particularly challenging to find best ways to get people involved and give them information needed. It is often very hard to reach a reliable balance between political goals and objective information of subjects.

Question 2

Legislation defines limits to big project by money values, for example value over 150 000 € for tendering process in national building projects. If project is likely to have affect on environment, the evaluation of environmental consequences must be made as defined by legislation.

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Ideally, this must be done in very early phase and to involve all relevant communities. In big demanding processes, there might be need for several occasions to meet communities, in different phases of the project.

Question 4

General approach is to find common view with neighbor countries: Russian federation, Sweden, Norway as well as to take note on common coals in EU in national projects. Parliament has a general control on these issues.

GREECE

Reply to Question 1

As promoter of major public works, the General Secretariat for Public Works of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks has many times experienced difficulties when decisions relating to major public works need to be taken.

The above mentioned competent authority believes that this should always be expected when major public works are due to be implemented, since -in general- their impact in the area of their implementation is quite important.

There are many types of difficulties due to different causes that have to be faced, usually before the beginning of the works; difficulties may also arise during the implementation of the works.

Such difficulties are as follow:

- Political questioning on the necessity, content, way of implementation, timing, budget involved/relevant, delays in implementation, cost overruns, etc.;

- Reactions of the local social and/or economic partners (citizens, companies, organisations, local/regional authorities, civil society, etc.) in the areas of projects’ implementation, on practically all issues of the projects;

- Reactions of national social and/or economic partners (e.g. ecological organisations, associations of contractors, archaeological services etc.) usually on environmental, employment, cultural, social, economic impacts’ or way of implementation, etc. issues.

Usually all reactions end up either in political debates in the Parliament or in appeals in the (national and/or European) courts.

Dealing with these difficulties is not easy and usually results to delays, cost increase, change of design, but very rarely on project cancelling. The way to deal with these difficulties depends on the reaction (i.e. in the Parliament, in the courts, etc.).

The competent Ministry tries through legal interventions to “canalize” the usual reactions under specific procedures which can provide a standardized way of dealing with them and most importantly of dealing with the actions of the involved authorities which result to them. A big part of such procedures are included in the public consultation procedures for the environmental terms: framework for discussion, supply of information to local interested persons, etc.

Reply to Question 2

The General Secretariat for Public Works of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks notes that the major procedures followed are those for the:

Inclusion of the project in the respective Master Plan (e.g. in the National strategic Master Plan for Transport Infrastructure development) and/or in the National and/or Regional (Spatial) Development Plan.
Drafting of the Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment of the Program under which the project is (to be) financed.
Issuance of the Environmental Permits for the specific project, through the procedure of public consultation.

Under the last procedure, the competent Ministry also implements negotiations with the local authorities, social & economic partners for off-set benefits balancing potential negative impacts of the projects in the (local/ wider) area.

In general, as major public work project is meant a project resulting in major impacts in the area of implementation. The impact is evaluated through special studies i.e. under the “environmental impact assessment studies” and feasibility studies.

All tiers of government are involved in such projects: local (municipalities), regional and national (e.g. the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, etc.).

The decisions are taken through consultations (foreseen in the legal framework) at various levels (e.g. for the financing of the project, the necessary land expropriations, the environmental permits, the city-plan permits, etc.). All the foreseen procedures are promoted by the Authority promoting the implementation of the project; this is the authority that invites all foreseen by the law to be involved, push for timely replies/ reactions, organize meetings, implement studies, etc.

Reply to Question 3

The department of Development Programs of the Ministry of Interior mentions that within the framework of a strategic operational and financial planning, local authorities (municipalities and regions) are obliged to elaborate a five-year operational program through inter-municipal and inter-level cooperation and active participation of all services and legal entities, which is entered into consultation with the local society. A municipal and regional consultation committee is set up in every municipality of over 10.000 inhabitants or region respectively, with a view to fostering social partners and citizens participation in the development policy of each tier.

Within this framework, the process of cooperation and involvement of the local communities in the implementation of special projects is developed. The General Secretariat for Public Works of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks adds that the involvement of the local communities is organized by the promoter of the project. Usually this is done through meetings with the local authorities (bilateral, multilateral) and open discussions with the people in the cities and/or villages that are directly affected by the project.

The process takes places as follows:

· At the beginning, the project promoter presents the key features of the project design and the first results of the Environmental Impact Assessment Study. The local authorities and people usually study the project and express their opinions and/or reservations at a later stage of discussions.

· In following meetings, the interested parties express their concerns, objections and worries and request changes to the project design and/ or interventions off-setting the expected negative impacts.

· In following meetings, the project promoter presents the changes of the project design and the potential measures to be implemented for the improvement of the potential negative effects of the project.

· Other meetings follow in which the two parties (i.e. the project promoter at the one hand and all other interested parties at the other hand) negotiate the features of the project, the parallel projects required, the off-set benefits to the persons etc.

Concluding, the above mentioned General Secretariat notes that certainly this is a long and difficult procedure in which the project promoter tries to acquire the local consensus for a project having the needed technical features, implemented at a logical cost and succeeding affordable operation/ maintenance costs (sustainability). This requires good preparation, political support, negotiation skills, patience, persistence and flexibility.

Meanwhile, the competent department of Technical Works of the Ministry of Interior notes that the most common ways of public involvement in public works take the form of non institutionalized participation such as legal proceedings and meetings of interested parties with political entities. Legislation does not provide for any public participation in the initial phase of the projects, when targets for intervention are identified and criteria are set. The law basically emphasizes on the protection of property rights.

For instance, appeal proceedings during the implementation of urban planning procedures are provided based on the effects of the planning on properties. It is an institutional procedure which allows for developing private interests instead of protecting collective interests.

The legislation does not provide for the participation of citizens in the decision making process in relation to issues concerning the traffic arrangements in urban areas and the design of public transport, which is of great importance to the formulation of social and aesthetic environment. Legislative provisions on administrative and financial decentralization (municipal districts, neighborhood councils, urban neighborhood committee) at the level of the neighborhood, whenever established, had been discredited in practice, because local government authorities had been vested with limited institutional powers.

Nowadays, citizens write various articles, local associations or even municipal authorities organize discussions and proceed with appeals.

The common reasons for undertaking such activities may relate to:

1. the non expropriation of land provided in the urban planning, while open spaces are fenced (Filopappou, Pedio tou Areos)

2. the building permits given for the construction of public welfare buildings in unstructured free spaces, which are considered to degrade the environment (Goudi, Elaionas, Stadium of Panathinaikos, Attiko alsos (grove) Museum of modern art, Pedio Areos, facilities of Panhellenic Athletic Club, Olympeio- National Athletic Club, Parko eleftherias (park), Megaron- the Athens Concert Hall)

3. the streams planned to be filled and converted for highway use (Kravsidonas, Anauros - Volos)

4. the planning of fixed track transport of supra - local importance which do not serve the needs of the local residents (Metamorfosi- Proastiakos/suburban railway)

5. the major roads projects, with significant environmental impact on the neighboring areas (Halandri, Vrilissia - Attiki odos/Agia Paraskevi- Perifereiaki Ymittou (Ring avenue of Ymittos) /Nea Makri, Rafina- Marathonos Avenue/ Psychiko, Filothei, Halandri- Kifisias Avenue/ Alimos- Poseidonos Avenue/ Hlioupoli. Elliniko, Glyfada, Perifereiaki Ymittou (Ring Avenue of Ymittos)

6. the planning of fixed track transport which cut off urban areas or cause environmental impacts ( Athina (Athens ), Agioi Anargyroi, Acharnes- proastiakos/suburban railway)/Alimos, Glyfada, Elliniko, N. Smyrni, P. Faliro –tram).

7. the environmental studies to relieve the neighborhoods of trough traffic which are not implemented and through traffic changes which are decided and change the way inhabitants can have access to their neighborhood (Koukaki).

Reply to Question 4

The General Secretariat for Public Works of the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transport and Networks notes that there are constitutional rights for all levels of interests. The overruling idea is that the social/ economic/ human development should be promoted at all levels without depressing/violating the rights of groups of people/ interests/ regions. This practically means consensus. In cases when consensus can not be reached the constitutionally nominated courts of the country or the EU are called (by the one or the other side) to decide.
IRELAND

LUXEMBOURG

Question 1

Dans votre pays, avez-vous rencontré des difficultés lorsqu'il a fallu prendre des décisions sur de grands travaux publics? Pouvez-vous décrire la nature de ces difficultés (manque d'intérêt pour le projet, refus de donner des informations, ingérence de parties non institutionnelles, etc.) et la façon dont elles ont été résolues (création d'un cadre de discussion, procédures d'information et de consultation élargies, allongement des délais, etc.)?

1. Décharge pour déchets industriels :

Au début des années 1990, le Gouvernement avait l’intention d’installer dans notre pays une décharge pour déchets industriels. La procédure de commodo et incommodo sur base de la loi sur les établissements dangereux, insalubres et incommodes fut lancée dans la commune où se trouvait le site choisi par le Gouvernement. Les autorités communales concernées ont alors organisé une consultation des citoyens et la population s’est fortement opposée contre la décharge. Celle-ci n’a pas été réalisée à l’endroit initialement prévu.

Un deuxième site fut choisi par le Gouvernement dans une autre commune. De nouveau il y eut une très forte opposition de la population locale. Un des opposants fervents s’est porté candidat aux élections communales et est par la suite devenu bourgmestre. Il a réussi avec son conseil communal à entreprendre toutes les démarches possibles contre le projet du Gouvernement, qui ne fut jamais réalisé.

Par après aucune décharge pour déchets industriels ne fut créée au Luxembourg, mais d’autres solutions ont été élaborées par le Gouvernement ensemble avec les industries concernées pour organiser la gestion des déchets industriels en conformité avec les directives communautaires.

2. Installation d’un nouveau stade de football avec centre commercial:

Le site choisi en 2009 pour la réalisation du projet (pour lequel il y a déjà un promoteur) se trouve dans une zone à risque d’inondation. Il existe une très forte opposition de la part de la population et des « Verts » contre la réalisation du projet à cet endroit. Les élections communales d’octobre 2011 dans la commune concernée ont tourné exclusivement autour de ce thème. L’affaire est toujours en cours et le Gouvernement songe à faire reconsidérer les dimensions du projet. Les autorités communales ont annoncé qu’elles vont organiser un référendum au niveau local sur le projet.

Question 2

Pouvez-vous décrire les mécanismes décisionnels ou les procédures à suivre dans votre pays concernant les projets de grands travaux publics: qu'est-ce qu'un projet de «grands» travaux publics, comment est évalué son impact sur le territoire, quels niveaux de gouvernement sont concernés, comment aboutit-on aux décisions?

Par projets de « grands travaux publics » il y a lieu d’entendre la construction de la grande voirie de communication ainsi que la réalisation de projets immobiliers d’envergure. A noter qu’aux termes de la législation actuelle « sur l’ensemble du territoire communal, toute réalisation, transformation, changement du mode d’affectation, ou démolition d’une construction, ainsi que les travaux de remblais et de déblais sont soumis à l’autorisation du bourgmestre » (art. 37 al. 1^er de la loi modifiée du 19 juillet 2004 concernant l’aménagement communal et le développement urbain).

1. La construction d’autoroutes, de routes de liaison d’envergure et de contournements de localités se fait en application des dispositions de la loi modifiée du 16 août 1967 ayant pour objet la création d’une grande voirie de communication et d’un fonds des Routes. http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/textescoordonnes/compilation/recueil_lois_speciales/VOIRIE.pdf. - Cette loi autorise le Gouvernement à établir une grande voirie de communication conformément à un programme général énoncé dans la même loi et aux plans à approuver par règlement grand-ducal, après avoir demandé l’avis du Conseil d’Etat. Les travaux de construction de cette voirie sont déclarés d’utilité publique. L’établissement, la modification et l’exploitation de cette voirie ressortissent exclusivement de l’Etat. La loi autorise l’Etat à poursuivre l’acquisition et l’expropriation pour cause d’utilité publique des immeubles nécessaires à la construction et à l’aménagement de la grande voirie de communication et fixe la procédure à suivre. Dans le cadre de cette procédure il appartient à chaque collège des bourgmestre et échevins des communes sur le territoire desquelles se trouvent les biens grevés d’informer le public dans les formes prescrites.

2. La réalisation de projets immobiliers d’envergure (implantation de zones d’activités économiques par l’Etat et/ou les communes, construction de lycées, réaménagement des friches industrielles à travers le projet Belval, …) est soumise aux lois applicables à toute construction, sauf exceptions spécifiques déterminées par la loi elle-même.

L’évaluation de l’impact d’un projet sur le territoire se fait en application de la législation en vigueur:

- loi modifiée du 10 juin 1999 relative aux établissements classés : notamment son article 1^er http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2011/0220/a220.pdf#page=2

- loi modifiée du 19 janvier 2004 concernant la protection de la nature et des ressources naturelles : notamment son article 12

http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2004/0010/a010.pdf#page=2

- loi modifiée du 19 juillet 2004 concernant l’aménagement communal et le développement urbain : zonage défini par règlement grand-ducal, conformité de tout projet au PAG (plan d’aménagement général) de la commune, le cas échéant à un PAP (plan d’aménagement particulier) ; dans tous les cas il faut une autorisation de construire (art. 37).

http://www.miat.public.lu/legislation/amenagement_communal/2_texte_coord.pdf

- loi du 29 mai 2009 portant

1. transposition en droit luxembourgeois en matière d’infrastructures de transport de la directive

97/11/CE du Conseil du 3 mars 1997 modifiant la directive 85/337/CEE concernant l’évaluation des

incidences de certains projets publics et privés sur l’environnement

2. modification de la loi du 22 mai 2008 relative à l’évaluation des incidences de certains plans et

programmes sur l’environnement

3. modification de la loi du 19 janvier 2004 sur la protection de la nature et des ressources naturelles.

http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/2009/0122/a122.pdf#page=10

Question 3

Comment est organisée la participation des communautés locales (résidents, ensemble des citoyens, associations, etc.) aux phases de partage de l'information et de prise de décision?

Conformément aux lois qui sont applicables à la réalisation des projets (voir réponse à la question 2), notamment :

- loi modifiée du 10 juin 1999 relative aux établissements classés : articles 9 à 12

- loi modifiée du 19 janvier 2004 concernant la protection de la nature et des ressources naturelles : articles 46 à 48

- loi modifiée du 19 juillet 2004 concernant l’aménagement communal et le développement urbain : en cas d’adoption ou de modification du PAG (plan d’aménagement général) est prévue une consultation publique (art. 12 et 15), de même en ce qui concerne le PAP (plan d’aménagement particulier) (art. 30), recours contre une autorisation de construire (art.37)

- loi du 29 mai 2009 portant

1. transposition en droit luxembourgeois en matière d’infrastructures de transport de la directive 97/11/CE du Conseil du 3 mars 1997 modifiant la directive 85/337/CEE concernant l’évaluation des incidences de certains projets publics et privés sur l’environnement

2. modification de la loi du 22 mai 2008 relative à l’évaluation des incidences de certains plans et programmes sur l’environnement

3. modification de la loi du 19 janvier 2004 sur la protection de la nature et des ressources naturelles : articles 6 et 7

Question 4

Quelle est l'approche générale adoptée dans votre pays lorsque les intérêts locaux et supranationaux divergent ou s'opposent? La démocratie locale prime-t-elle ou devrait-elle primer sur la démocratie supranationale (footnote 2)?

En ce qui concerne la grande voirie de communication, la loi modifiée du 16 août 1967 est claire : c’est l’Etat qui décide. Les communes n’interviennent en principe pas « activement » dans la procédure. Leur rôle est limité à l’information du public, sans qu’elles n’aient l’occasion d’émettre un avis. - Cependant, l’article 37 alinéa 1^er de la loi modifiée du 19 juillet 2004 concernant l’aménagement communal et le développement urbain est le cas échéant applicable pour certains travaux.

En ce qui concerne les projets immobiliers d’envergure, il existe différentes possibilités d’intervenir dans le cadre des procédures légales esquissées dans la réponse à la question 2.

Il est toujours possible que la population réagisse pour exprimer son désaccord ou son mécontentement sur un projet : création de « Biirgerinitiativen » (actions à l’initiative de citoyens), organisation de manifestations dans les rues, devant les ministères, ….Généralement l’autorité centrale ne reste pas indifférente à la réaction de la population locale. Elle cherche à trouver une solution qui satisfait au mieux tous les intérêts en jeu. Si cela n’est pas possible, le Gouvernement central décide (Chambre des Députés) et prend donc ses responsabilités

Footnote 1

On peut citer notamment le chantier de la construction de la ligne ferroviaire Turin-Lyon, qui pose également question à l'étranger, la discussion qui a pris beaucoup de temps sur la mise en œuvre du Pont de Messine (entre la Calabre et la Sicile) ou les décisions qui concernent l’installation de sites protégés pour le stockage des déchets nucléaires (par exemple, Squinzano Jonico) ou même de simples décharges pour les déchets municipaux (Naples).

Footnote 2

Les Etats membres de l’UE sont particulièrement concernés par cette question.

MONACO

Bonjour Madame,

je vous adresse toutes informations utiles en vue du présent questionnaire, en précisant que les réponses ne peuvent être exhaustives car la politique des travaux publics est un très vaste domaine à Monaco.

Après consultation du Département ministériel concerné (Département de l'Equipement, de l'Environnement et de l'Urbanisme), nous avons plutôt cherché à faire une courte synthèse qui soit à la fois utile et compréhensible par tous,
ainsi qu'il suit :

- les grands travaux sont un aspect essentiel de la Principauté, compte tenu de la surface territoriale terrestre réduite (2,2 km²).

- les premiers textes formalisés remontent au XIXe siècle : Ordonnance sur l'alignement et la construction (1853), Ordonnance sur les constructions nouvelles (1878, refondue en 1885)...

- le texte central toujours en vigueur, avec des mises à jour périodiques, est une Ordonnance-Loi du 3 novembre 1959 ; sans entrer dans le détail, il faut retenir qu'elle règle principalement la compétence du Gouvernement en la matière et divise la Principauté en secteurs d'opérations urbanisées.
Sur ce point, il convient de noter qu'une réforme ne peut à cet égard intervenir qu'en vertu d'un avis conforme d'un Comité supérieur d'urbanisme présidé par le Président du Conseil d'Etat (justice), avec représentants en parité du Conseil National (législatif), du Conseil Communal (Mairie) et du Gouvernement.

- en vertu de la loi de 2006 sur l'organisation communale, la Commune dispose d'un sorte de droit d'opposition sur ce type d'affaires, obligeant, si divergences, le Gouvernement à revoir sa copie via une seconde délibération formelle. De mémoire, je ne suis pas sûr que la chose se soit produite une seule fois en cinq ans et demi.

- néanmoins, tous les projets (y compris pour de modestes surélévations ou changement ou d'aménagement de structuration du bâti) sont présentés devant un Comité Consultatif pour la Construction où les différentes institutions et entités en rapport avec la thématique travaux et cadre de vie (telles que l'ordre des architectes ou le comité des traditions monégasques) sont représentées, dont la commune de Monaco qui dispose d'une voie délibérative.

- dans les dossiers d'un intérêt particulier, il y une prééminence du Gouvernement à même de procéder aux arbitrages parfois nécessaires.

- d'une manière globale, il n'y a pas de conflit à l'échelon local du fait, encore une fois, de la spécificité monégasque (cf tiret 1) résultant d'une collectivité territoriale unique : la proximité des pouvoirs publics fait qu'une concertation est indispensable et le dialogue consubstantiel à l'organisation de ceux-ci.

Je reste à disposition pour tout renseignement complémentaire qui pourrait s'avérer nécessaire.

C. CEYSSAC
NORWAY

CDLR- Questionnaire : difficulties regarding decisions relating to major public works

QUESTIONS

Question 1

Answer:

Such decisions are taken by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget), for a long term planning periode. The relevant laws regarding planning and transport etc are under the authority of other ministries than the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development. The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Transport are presenting such issues in propositions to the Norwegian Parliament. For that reason it is difficult to give a qualified answer to this question. For the same reason we can only give very general answers to the next questions 2-4.

Question 2

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Answer:

There are consultation procedures between the responsible ministry in central government and the regional authorities and local municipalities, and also with associatiosn and citizens at local municipal level.

Question 4

Answer:

The general approach is that the Norwegian Parliament takes the decision.

SERBIA

Question 1

Have you experienced in your country difficulties when decision relating to major public works needed to be taken? Can you describe which type of difficulties (lack of interest in the project, refusal to provide information, interference from non-institutional parties..) and how they have been dealt with (setting up a framework for discussion, extended information and consultation procedures, extension of delays..).

Answer:

The Law on Employment and Unemployment Insurance has envisaged the public works as works organised with the aim of employment, preservation and improvement of unemployed persons' competences and skills, as well as for the purpose of pursuing certain social interest.

Every year, public works attract great interest both from employers, the contractors for public works, and the unemployed persons, who are interested in being included in the works.

The problem that the National Employment Service is facing is actually the insufficient funds available for conducting public works relative to the number of submitted applications.

Question 2

Answer:

The above Law has not defined the concept of a “major” public work project, so it is not possible to answer the question about its impact.

As regards the realization of public works, they are conducted as follows:

- The National Employment Service announces a public competition for delivery of public works, whereby it invites all interested parties to apply for implementation of public works.

- The following parties are eligible to apply: bodies of the territorial autonomy or local self-governments, public institutions and enterprises, economic entities, sole proprietors, cooperatives, social organisations and citizens associations.

- In the next step, the National Employment Service branch offices process and evaluate the applications and send a list of proposed public works, attuned to the approved financial quota, to the Public Works Committee.

- The Committee verifies the applications received from the NES branch offices and forwards them to the Director of the National Employment Service for decision making.

- The decision to award the contract on public works is made by the Director of the National Employment Service, with prior approval from the NES Management Board.

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decisions-making phases organized?

Answer 3:

As part of the documentation submitted in the application for delivering a public work, the applicant may also include the opinion of the local employment council or of the competent authority from the territorial autonomy or local self-government about the justification of conducting the proposed public work. If the opinion is positive, the application receives additional points.

As for the cooperation of the National Employment Service and the local self-government units, it is exercised through implementation of Article 59 of the Law on Employment and Unemployment Insurance. Namely, pursuant to the said Law, it is possible to conduct public works with co-funding from the national budget of Serbia and from the budgets of the local self-governments. In this case, the decision on conducting public works is jointly made by the National Employment Service and the local self-government units, according to an agreement they conclude. At this point we wish to stress that citizens’ associations may be public work contractors.

Question 4

What is the general approach adopted in your country when local and supranational interest do not coincide or enter into conflict with each other? Does or should local democracy have supremacy over supranational democracy?

Answer:

We believe that NES is not competent to answer this question.

SLOVAKIA

CDLR- Questionnaire : difficulties regarding decisions relating to major public works

QUESTIONS

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc.) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Answer:

Given the fact that the self-governmental regions and municipalities dispose with the competencies in the area of territorial planning and have responsibility over their territory and citizen’s needs the consultations with them from the side of state organs when dealing with major infrastructural projects is inevitable.

The representatives of territorial self-government are present in the Government’s advisory bodies.

When dealing with specific projects, the Government and state authorities cooperate with the associations of towns and municipalities of Slovakia as well as with the mayors of the towns and villages.

Every inhabitant of the municipality and self-governing region has the right to participate in self-government of the municipality and self-governing region through:

· voting in local referenda (addressing the important issues of life and development of the municipality and autonomous region - the local/regional council declares the referendum either by its own decision or based on petition of at least 30% of eligible voters)

· submitting their complaints and proposals to the respective bodies of the municipality and self-governmental region.

Residents of municipalities are also entitled to conduct its own meetings, where they can express their views.

Question 4

SWEDEN

QUESTIONS

Question 1

Answer:

There are some examples of such difficulties, for instance projects to build larger railways, airports and water power plants. The responsibility for developing regional plans lies at the local authorities in close cooperation with the state. For that reason is it sometimes possible to solve difficulties during this initial process.

Question 2

Answer:

In Sweden there are continuing regional planning which always is considering future needs within the different regional parts of the country. The responsibility for developing these plans lies with the local authorities in close cooperation with the state. If there are discussions of initiating a large project the state, through the relevant regional state agency, makes sure that the project is considered in the regional plan.

The Government normally appoints a state commission to investigate the project. The state commission report back to the Government who send the report for consultation. After the consultation the Government proposes a bill that the Parliament decides about. On the basis of the decision made by the Parliament the Government decides how the project shall be implemented and by whom. The Government often assign the project to a central agency.

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Answer:

Representatives from the local authorities are often a part of the state commission. The state commission have a responsibility to involve those who are concerned.

When the Government or the Parliament has decided on implementing a special project the Government usually give a state agency the task to handle the project. The Government stipulate that the agency shall have close consultation with the concerned authorities throughout the whole process.

Question 4

Answer:

The general approach is to find a common view with other countries and to try to influence common goals in national projects within the EU. This is normally done by the state.

Footnote 1

Footnote 2

EU member states are particularly concerned by this question.

SWITZERLAND

Question 1

Basically, Switzerland faces the same challenges and difficulties when it comes to realizing major public works as its neighboring (EU-) countries. Some specificities may however be highlighted:

· Switzerland is comparatively densely populated: 7.7 million inhabitants live on a surface area of 41,285 square kilometers, which makes up for 187 inhabitants/km² (EU average = 116 habitants/km²). This figure systematically underestimates the effective population density, though, as it ignores the fact that 25% of the surface area of Switzerland consists in lakes, rivers, unproductive vegetation and no vegetation at all. Moreover, two thirds of the population live on the so called “Plateau” which covers about 30 percent of the country’s surface area. All major cities and agglomerations – and thus the vast majority of large public works – are located (or, rather, concentrated) on the “Plateau”.

· Construction standards (e.g. tunnel safety requirements) and environment/health protection standards (e.g. emission limit for non-ionizing radiation being 10 times more restrictive than in the EU) are high. In combination with scarce space reserves, this provokes a tendency towards complex and lengthy approval procedures and towards high project costs.

· Switzerland is a federal state consisting of 26 Cantons (member states) with far reaching autonomy rights regarding spatial planning, supply and traffic management as well as public finance (every Canton has its own budgetary and fiscal system which is largely independent from the federal States’). In Switzerland, the principle of subsidiarity is firmly anchored; it holds also in the case of large public works. So, for example, the high-tension electric power grid and even the motorway system were, until recently, principally under the control of the Cantons; the main responsibility for these nationwide networks was shifted to the Confederation only of late.

· The political system in Switzerland is based on direct democracy. This implies that the role of governments and parliaments in the political decision process is, compared with systems of representative democracy, restricted. In fact, virtually every major public infrastructure project is subject, at a certain point in its origination process, to one or several popular votes. Citizens have not only the definite say on the project itself, but also on its financing. According to the principle of subsidiarity, public infrastructure works of local or regional interest are generally decided and financed by the communal and cantonal levels – albeit authorized and sometimes subsidized by the federal State –, whereas projects of national interest are basically decided and financed by the Confederation; however, their realization is often a common task to be jointly fulfilled by the Confederation and the Cantons involved.

· Several factors – e.g. the structure of the geography and topography, the functionality of the networks, the soundness of the public budges –, contribute to the phenomenon that private investment is virtually absent in land-based traffic infrastructures (road and rail) and rather the exception than the rule in power and energy supply networks. Only airports, ports (Rheinhäfen Basel) and telecommunication networks are mainly under private control, the state still having a noticeably influence on them, though (e.g., the Confederation holds a 50%+1 share in the capital of Swisscom which has, for its part, a market share of well over 50%).

Historically, there have been very few examples of large public works being stopped and abandoned by force of extra-parliamentary opposition after they had been formally approved – the most prominent being the near-to-be nuclear power plant of Kaiseraugst finally dismissed, after massive civil protest actions, in the late 1970s.

As a general rule, opposition against infrastructure projects is channeled into the formal democratic decision process. Promoters and critics have an equal chance to foster a political campaign aimed at influencing the public opinion in view of the popular vote. As part of the game, it is understood that once an infrastructure project is confirmed by a popular vote, it is not put into question thereafter. This does of course not exclude that, if the economical/technological premises and/or political priorities are altered in the course of the realization of the project, a second or even a third popular vote may be executed in order to adapt the project specifications and/or its financing mechanism to the actual circumstances. This is common especially in the case of large and very long-term infrastructure projects such as e.g. the construction of the national motorway system or of the “New Railway Link through the Alps” (i.e. the Lötschberg and Gotthard base tunnels), the realization of which extends over several decades.

Question 2

Speaking from a federal point of view, a “major” public work is an infrastructure project of national interest and of country-wide impact, i.e. one which mainly serves the purpose of connecting all regions and all larger cities/agglomerations of Switzerland among each other and with the surrounding centers in Europe, and which is essential for supplying the whole population with basic infrastructure services such as mobility, connectivity, or power and energy supply. Usually, such projects are very important on the local and regional levels, too. Consequently, the financing and realization of “national” infrastructure projects is often a joint task of (communal, in the case of urban transport,) cantonal and federal state levels – the decisive influence accruing to the Confederation, though. All state levels involved must approve the project and grant their respective financial contributions to it. Therefore, several popular votes are normally held on a single project – possibly at different stages of its origination process – on the diverse state levels. This implies that the political hurdle for any large infrastructure project in Switzerland is quite high: Only projects that have successfully passed parliamentary and direct democratic decision procedures on all state levels involved are politically viable. This practice may seem complex and somewhat cumbersome – in fact, it often is –, but it has got its undeniable advantages: Thanks to the additive indirect (parliamentary decision) and direct (popular vote) democratic legitimization of every single major infrastructure project on both the national and the regional/local levels, the development of the national infrastructure stock in Switzerland has been steady and basically need-driven. As a result, Switzerland’s score in international rankings of the overall quality of infrastructure stock is quite satisfying. An important element of this success story is the practice of installing distinctive funds in order to finance large public works over long periods; this makes sure that the realization of long-term infrastructure projects and programs is not hampered or delayed by aleatoric short-term budgetary problems.

The impact of “national” infrastructure projects on the territory – as well as on the economy and on the public budgets – is evaluated on every state level involved. On the federal level, this task is performed by the Department (=Ministry) of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) in collaboration with the Department of Finance. Formal and informal coordination networks and procedures between different state levels make sure that the outcomes of these analyses – and of course the effects of the infrastructure projects themselves – are balanced from a federal and from a cantonal/communal point of view, which is an important part of their democratic legitimization, too. Usually, the coordination between federal and cantonal authorities functions well in daily practice.

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Involvement of specific interest groups as well as of the broad public is warranted by the Swiss tradition of consulting every legislative project – be it initiated by the government, by the parliament or by a “popular initiative” (for which 100’000 valid signatures of eligible voters are needed) – among a wide range of institutions. The consultations take place at the very beginning, so that it can be taken account of the needs of the local communities and other involved groups and persons in the process of conceiving the project. In the course of this comprehensive consultation process, significant objections to the project are brought up by the participants and made transparent by the government. This allows the parliament to apply targeted improvements to the project in order to enhance its prospects of being accepted in the subsequent popular vote. As every popular vote in Switzerland is prepared and accompanied by a intense public debate echoed by the mass media, citizens are normally quite well informed about the pros and cons of any legislative project – large public works and their financing included.

Of course, the judicial means to defend legitimate private or public interests in the course of the realization (planning, constructing, operating) of large infrastructure projects remain unimpaired by the political decision process. As in other countries, too, the settlement of numerous complaints (which may lead to minor adaptations of the project after it has been adopted by the sovereign) makes up for a considerable part of the realization period of large infrastructure works in Switzerland.

Question 4

As Switzerland is not part of the EU, supranational interests in the domain of infrastructure development are incorporated in the national decision process by international agreements or state treaties. E.g. the realization of the new railway link through the Alps (NRLA) was preceded and enabled by a bilateral agreement between Switzerland and the EU, allowing Switzerland to implement a non-discriminatory road tax for trucks (Performance Related Heavy Vehicle Fee, HVF) which contributes to financing the railway project. The bilateral agreement with the EU was subject to a popular vote in Switzerland, as – later on – the NRLA itself. If the NRLA had been rejected by the Swiss voters, the bilateral agreement with the EU still would have remained valid. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the NRLA could have been realized without the HVF, i.e. the bilateral agreement with the EU. In that sense – and under this specific constellation –, a factual supremacy of the democratic decision on the international agreement over the subsequent democratic decision on the national infrastructure project can be stated.

In most cases, though, there is no connection between Swiss infrastructure projects and Trans European Network planning. Thus, supranational coordination is not needed. However, Switzerland concludes, on a case to case basis, bilateral agreements with its neighboring countries on the development of specific infrastructure projects that are of national interest but located abroad. E.g., Switzerland has contributed financially to the restoration and reactivation of the Bourg-en-Bresse – Geneva railway track in France which helps to reduce the travel time between Paris and western Switzerland significantly. Similarly, Switzerland participated in the funding of the TGV-Rhin-Rhône connection. As for the future, a Swiss credit has been decided and pronounced in order to expedite the upgrade of the Bregenz – Munich railway link by German authorities. In addition, Switzerland has been investing in transshipment terminals along the transalpine cargo route in Germany and Italy. More international cooperation projects of that kind are likely to come up in the future, e.g. in order to enhance the southern feeder lines to the new base tunnels through the Alps on Italian territory.

Footnote 1

Footnote 2

EU member states are particularly concerned by this question.

UNITED KINGDOM

Questionnaire on Major Public Works

Question 1

A new package of measures to improve the planning system, particularly on issues concerning decisions relating to major infrastructure projects, has recently been put in place. The old system was complex and bureaucratic with overlapping multiple consent regimes that had long and variable inquiry times. For example, it took seven years to get a decision on Heathrow Airport Terminal 5, more than six years to get a decision on North Yorkshire Power Line upgrade and nearly four years to get to a decision on Dibden Bay container terminal.

This situation was causing unnecessary delays to planning applications and created a barrier to unlocking much needed economic development, and urgent reform was required to comply with a new and ambitious national plan for growth. There was a need for fast-tracking major infrastructure projects. In order to enable progress (see question 2 for details of new reforms).

Question 2

Until recently, decisions would have been taken by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) under the specific legislation that governed major infrastructure projects (for example, , large energy projects, the building of certain highways and railways, airport related development and the construction of dams, reservoirs, waste water treatment plants and hazardous waste facilities.

New arrangements have now been put in place that return decision making on such major infrastructure projects to democratically elected Ministers. All relevant and important matters of national policy and local issues will be fully tested and assessed in a public examination process before Ministers come to a view as to whether an application for development consent should be granted consent or refused.

Ministers will take decisions within the policy framework of National Policy Statements (NPSs) which have been subject to public consultation and approval by the UK Parliament before they have been designated. NPSs are thematic documents (for example, covering certain types of energy projects), produced by Government and set out the basis for determining development consent for infrastructure projects. In particular, they set out the need for infrastructure and policies against which applications for development consent will be considered.

Question 3

How is the involvement of the local communities (ie, residents, citizens at large, associations, etc) in the information-sharing and decision-making phases organised?

Local people and local authorities have a number of opportunities to get involved and potentially influence such projects.

Local authorities are given the opportunity to prepare local impact reports that set out impacts of a national infrastructure project at the local level.

Local people can put forward their views at the pre-application stage, and during the examination of applications prior to the decision making process by Ministers. People also have the opportunity to have their say on draft National Policy Statements when they are published for public consultation - these documents will also be approved by the UK Parliament before they are designated.

Before a promoter submits an application for consent for an infrastructure project, they must consult the local community about their proposals. When the application is submitted the promoter must provide a summary of those responses and explain how they have been taken into account when finalising the proposal.

Pre-application procedures ensure that any significant issues with the proposal are identified at an early stage, which should result in better applications coming forward which may provide mitigation against the concerns of local people. This “front-loading” in turn helps in making more speedy decisions once applications are submitted.

Question 4

The planning system has gone through an extensive reform which is consistent with the UK Government’s drive towards “localism” – that is: local people, businesses and councils in control to shape the future of their local areas. The Localism Act 2011 is driving this power shift from the centre to the local communities, wiping away bureaucracy and cutting red tape.

The current system provides a national framework within which local people and their councils can produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities. As such, most planning decisions are decided locally. Local authorities look closely at any major infrastructure projects proposed in their area and engage with developers on potential applications.

However there are a small number of key decisions to be taken on major infrastructure projects which, due to their national importance, need to be taken at a national level by democratically accountable Ministers.

The Localism Act also provides for National Policy Statements to be approved by the UK Parliament. These documents are produced by Government, and set out the basis for determining development consent for infrastructure projects. In particular, they set out the need for infrastructure and policies against which applications for development consent are considered. Having clear and robust policy statements in place can help prevent potential conflicting situations.

Decisions may be challenged by way of judicial review. Where someone wishes to bring a legal challenge against a decision, the claim form must be filed within six weeks of the publication of the order granting development consent.

Footnote 1

Footnote 2

EU member states are particularly concerned by this question.