Strasbourg, 29 June 2010                                                            CELGR/AB(2010)2

THE CENTRE OF EXPERTISE AT THE CROSSROADS:

SUGGESTIONS FOR A POSSIBLE REFORM

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.

Foreword

The current document examines the main trends, challenges and opportunities which the Centre meets or is likely to meet in the medium term.

After a rapid overview of its main features and achievements (1) – for more detailed information, please refer to the annual activity report for 2009, document CELGR(2010)1 – this document presents recent trends and challenges (2, 3) and looks at possible ways forward by launching 12 discussion points for reflection, debate and decision (4).

The Appendix presents in more details the various types of "business models" that the Centre has developed or may develop.

Action required

Advisory Board members are invited to have a general discussion on the future of the Centre of Expertise and examine in particular the 12 discussion points for future action included in the last part of the document. In the light of the discussion, they are to give guidance to the Secretariat for the drawing up of a strategic document for future adoption by the Board.

THE CENTRE OF EXPERTISE AT THE CROSSROADS:

SUGGESTIONS FOR A POSSIBLE REFORM

Four years after the creation of the Centre of Expertise and at a time of reform in the whole of the Council of Europe, it is necessary to have a clear view of how the Centre of Expertise should evolve in order to raise to the challenges it faces.

Following the cancellation, in 2009, for budgetary reasons, of the position of Head of the Centre of Expertise, it was decided in 2010 that the post of Head of the Programmes for Democratic Stability would be combined with that of Head of the Centre.

In this way, the Centre could end up having (almost) all the staff it needs as envisaged at the time of its creation, assuming that the proposed cut in staff (1 A2/3 administrator) will be at the expense of the multilateral part of the intergovernmental sector (CDLR and ministerial conference).

Nonetheless, the situation of the Centre requires some critical review in order to ensure, in times of overall review of the Council of Europe’s activities, the most effective use of resources and the implementation of the right policies, also in terms of meeting member states’ expectations and needs.

1          What does the Centre stand for?

Capacity-building work by the Centre is expensive and human-intensive. It is about looking for, selecting, developing and implementing programmes that address local authorities needs in terms of capacities to fulfil their tasks. This may impact on their staff – the mission they have, the way they work –, on elected representatives – how they develop a vision for their function, how they can lead and impulse the local community –, on the supporting bodies – what role local authorities’ associations can have in order to accompany, support and enable individual local authorities to be as effective and responsive as possible. Programmes are based on tools (collections of case studies, model methodologies, practical advice) and staff (those who look for, collate and develop the programmes, turn them into “tools” and promote their utilisation, through “training” of trainers and others).

From the beginning, the Centre saw and developed its work according to the following:

-        the creative strand: develop new tools;

-        the management strand: supervise/manage implementation of programmes based on these tools;

-        the networking strand: create partnerships for leverage and increased impact (this can mean more tools produced, more “clients”, but in particular more activities being implemented and more resources).

However, doing all this at the same time and in a balanced way required human and financial resources that were not available.

The Centre therefore opted, with the approval of the Advisory Board, for a three-pronged approach:

-        the growth priority: to do as much as possible, in terms of meeting as many demands as possible demands and searching for all possible funding opportunities, to reach a sort of “critical mass”;

-        the diversification priority: to continue to invest in the creative and networking strands of work, not use all resources on the programme implementation; resist ever growing demands for more front-office work in order to continue to invest (at least to a small extent) in the back-office work;

-        the geographical diversification priority: to respond to demands from Northern and Western European countries, in order to provide a service to all member states – that pay for its existence – and not only to some states in selected geographical areas (following geopolitical priorities that may be limited in time).

The Centre of Expertise has thus worked for the last four years on a “growth scenario”: always trying to obtain external resources in order to implement as many programmes as possible so that the creative and networking strands work could be financed either from ordinary budget resources or directly by partners). It typically spent 10 € from extra budgetary sources for each 1 € it spent in the form of operational expenditure from the ordinary budget. Programme implementation being very human resources intensive, in many cases the outside sources of funding also had to cover for extra staff working on the programmes.

The ideal growth model the Centre was trying to develop was one where all implementation (including remuneration for the management staff) would be paid for by external sources, while ordinary budget would be employed in particular for developing tools and creating partnerships. This goal has not yet been met: currently, around 75% of the Centre’s budget (including staff time) is dedicated to programme implementation.

2          Is this model sustainable?

There is a real and growing demand for capacity-building implementation programmes. This demand is uninterrupted and even growing in several Central, South-Eastern and Eastern member states where there continues to be a need for support to the constantly evolving legal and institutional framework of local government. In Western European countries the demand is linked to the development of new management models in local authorities and the drive for constantly improving the quality of local governance.

In both, the quest for better governance at all levels – which may include the simplification and rationalisation of tiers of government, increased transparency and efficiency in the provision of services, responsiveness to citizens’ needs and greater accountability of local authorities – generates an interest in European tools and models and a demand for “partnerships” with the Centre in the implementation of these activities.

The demand therefore is not drying up, on the contrary, it is growing and expanding to include new needs. Partly, these needs reflect a change in local governance which the Council of Europe has itself encouraged, especially through the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance.

Partly, these needs stem from an evolution in demand for “assistance”. In addition to capacity building, traditional legislative assistance has evolved too. If fewer member states today request the assistance the way they used to – reviewing draft bill in the light of the Charter of Local Self-government and other Council of Europe’s standards – many are interested in getting access to other member states’ and Council of Europe’s know how in more sophisticated forms. Workshops, rapid response questionnaires and “peer reviews” have been developed by the CDLR and meet with significant approval from member states.

Political monitoring the way it also used to be conducted is coming to an end for most member states too. However, reform in the local government field is unlikely to cease any time soon and countries do need “help”, in forms to be determined. Policy and legislative assistance to a number of member states therefore has still a huge potential for attracting third-party donor funds, be they from voluntary contributions or Joint Programmes with the European Commission.

Certainly, not all forms of co-operation can be labelled “assistance”, but the concept is evolving and the way in which to respond  to demand is one of the tasks that will have to be fulfilled by making a more finely tuned use of existing budgetary and human resources.

The resources available will have to be better identified, though. While the Council of Europe’s budget will remain at best constant, and its human resources at best stable, other sources need to be tapped.

For some member states, EU funds may be tapped in the framework of specific pre-accession or other programmes inasmuch as the applicant countries so require and involve the Centre in the relevant negotiations. For the same and other states, bilateral assistance may also play a role, provided that donor and beneficiary states agree to use the centre – its know how, its tools, its programmes – in the packages they negotiate. For most states – especially in Western Europe, which do not have access to EU enlargement funds nor benefit from bilateral assistance – resources may have to come from domestic budgets, by allocation of existing resources to the Centre’s programmes.

There is also a clear interest in other International organisations – such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE and the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP – for enhanced co-operation in the field of active promotion of better governance at local level, by jointly developing or promoting tools, implementing programmes or joining forces in order to achieve the same objectives.

The political environment is also moving. The European ministers responsible for local and regional government, at the 16th session of their conference, in Utrecht (16-17 November 2009), expressed their satisfaction with "the high quality of the capacity-building tools and programmes developed by the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, the increasing demand for them and the practical impact that their implementation by European local authorities is having". 

The Ministers, having regard to the recommendations contained in the report prepared by their Finnish colleague, Minister Mari Kiviniemi, also agreed to “to make use of, and strongly encourage other actors in (their) respective member States, including (their) colleagues of foreign affairs, to make use of the Council of Europe’s experience and know-how – which includes the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform – when considering and designing assistance programmes in the field of local and regional democracy and good governance”.

In conclusion, it would seem that there is an increased interest for and pressure on the Centre to continue to develop and promote its role and tools. This calls for a clear definition of its tasks and strategic choices over the next few years.

3          The partners

The Centre is not operating in a vacuum. Its activities respond to and meet demands arising from member states – central government, local authorities and their associations – and international organisations, in the framework of bilateral or multilateral assistance and co-operation programmes. Its development is followed and steered by the Advisory board composed of representatives of the intergovernmental sector (the CDLR) and of local and regional authorities (the Congress) in the Council of Europe.

Relations with the CDLR have traditionally been very good: governments and their representatives in the CDLR have supported the creation of the Centre of Expertise and have regularly manifested their support for it; the Centre has regularly presented its achievements in front of the CDLR; the CDLR has discussed the annual report of the Centre before it being transmitted to the Committee of Ministers.

The CDLR is represented, through Mrs Greta Billing, on the Advisory Board of the Centre.

The Centre derives part of its tools from work produced by the CDLR: Toolkit III was 100% inspired by the Handbook of Public Ethics at Local Level (which, in its turn, took into account the “European code of conduct for local and regional elected representatives” prepared by the Congress) and from Committee of Ministers Recommendations Rec(2004)1 and Rec(2005)1.

In 2010, for the first time, the Centre of Expertise involved a CDLR subordinate committee, the LR-GG, into the development of one of its future tools, the Toolkit on Human Resources Management.

The Congress is represented on the Advisory Platform by a member and its Secretary General. Information is exchanged between the secretariats in order for the Centre to involve as appropriate Congress’ members in the programme implementation (steering committees’ meetings, visits, conferences), to take into account the needs or priorities of the Congress in programmes’ design and ensure that local authorities al national lever know about the centre and its programmes as much as possible.

According to the statement adopted by the European Ministers at Utrecht, the European Committee on Local and Regional democracy (CDLR) is invited “to support and encourage the other strands of action, notably the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level, including the Twelve principles of good democratic governance at local level and the European Label of Good Governance at Local Level, capacity-building at local and regional level through the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, legislative and policy assistance and co-operation programmes and the European Local Democracy Week, in particular by examining their results regularly and by promoting them among governments, local and regional authorities, their associations as well as with potential partners and donors”.

4          The way forward

Even in the best of scenarios, financial and human resources from the Council of Europe will remain stable. If the Centre has therefore to adopt a model that relies on the budget and staff the Council of Europe places at its disposal for its strategic core business and relies on additional voluntary resources for other activities.

To identify a way forward, the following 12 discussion points are proposed for reflection, debate and decision.

1.       The current model of assistance programmes would not be abandoned

Traditional legislative/policy-making assistance is still clearly needed in many countries, in particular in the East. This type of activity also (still) attracts sizeable extra-budgetary sources and raises a lot of interest in the Committee of Ministers.

Moreover, it is to be expected that, in particular if the new Centre of Expertise manages to project an image of modernity and shows that it is working in all areas of Europe, in particular Western and Nordic ones, demand for such assistance may increase.

2.       However, the Centre should invest in the new peer review methodology

The success of the new peer review methodology is important not only for the CDLR but also for the future of the assistance programmes and of the Centre:

The Centre of Expertise has extensive experience with the organisation of peer reviews. It has even developed a special training module for peer reviewers. Moreover, the Centre developed a series of benchmarks on financial decentralisation and practice addressed to central governments. Until now, these benchmarks have not met with demand.

The Centre should therefore be associated (in particular by providing advice and suggesting experts) to the peer reviews organised jointly by the CDLR and the assistance programmes.

3.       More fund-raising efforts should be made

The Centre should continue to try to raise extra-budgetary funds. Large projects, the ones that allow for setting up local teams, are to be favoured. However, small contributions should not be discarded as they often serve useful purposes and their implementation can often be assumed by project managers on top of other tasks, in particular by decentralising some of the implementation efforts to local partners or international experts.

4.       Communication should be adapted

The Centre needs a simple but strong message, without any bureaucratic language, declined in several formats for several audiences, and a revised website, integrated, active, vibrant; a new leaflet, possibly also a more extensive brochure; instead of a lengthy annual report, two or three annual newsletters might have more impact, a few well-targeted PP presentations.

5.       Excessive "Eastern drive" should be compensated for

Extra-budgetary funds are mainly found for programmes implemented in Eastern European countries. If the Centre is to maintain a geographically-balanced activity, it means that more funds from the ordinary budget need to be earmarked for working in Western and Nordic countries. These funds would be small sums (around €5,000 per country) allowing for our participation and/or participation of one expert. Operational costs would normally be borne by participating municipalities.

6.       Capacity-building should strive to do a bit of all the models presented

A combination of models is possible, but it should be acknowledged that the Centre cannot do everything and be evaluated only in respect of the impact of one of the models.

a. The Centre will continue to offer direct support to the implementation of capacity-building programmes.

b. The Centre will continue to work to develop and promote new capacity-building tools and it could strive to increase its impact by allowing other actors to implement its tools, while observing the following conditions:

c. Moreover, the Centre could continue to develop some programmes that look more like training than capacity-building (although only in their format, as in reality participants leave this training with personal improvement plans, which brings them closer to capacity building that mere training):

-        the Leadership Academy should continue to be implemented (in 2010 in Turkey);

-        a programme on Human Resources Management which will include one methodology based on a 3-day seminar should follow soon;

-        the Centre should continue to be involved in the development of a training module on Good Governance based on the 12 Principles of the Strategy by MCI.

d. The Centre could continue to strive to become a networking nexus, at least by organising annual thematic get-togethers with partners and donors. It would also take inspiration from the Strategy results in developing new tools and implementing new programmes. 

e. The Centre should also continue to offer support to the Strategy.

7.       New priorities for capacity-building

Up to now, the level of activity of the Centre was measured, to a large degree, in terms of number of programmes and countries. In future, the centre should concentrate on projects which promise to obtain significant impact for a small investment (because the participating authorities are able to contribute or identify a larger budget, and/or because their level of commitment is extremely high).

There is a risk that this will penalise some countries, especially in the East, which have a strong need for capacity-building, but which cannot contribute matching funds and/or cannot offer serious hopes for strong impact because of an incipient stage of reform.

8.       New relations with the CDLR

Strengthening the relations with the CDLR is pivotal in making the Centre of Expertise both more efficient and more visible inside the Council of Europe.

The Centre of Expertise is not the equivalent of a committee of experts whose mandate the CDLR adopts and whose results it determines. In other terms, it is and will not be for the CDLR to decide which programmes to launch or not, to examine in detail capacity-building tools and adopt/approve them or to decide the budget of the Centre of Expertise and how to use it.

However, there are many ways in which the CDLR can contribute to the work of the Centre of Expertise:

Rather then having lengthy discussions during the CDLR plenary sessions, it would be preferably to involve subordinate committees in operational work (in particular preparation of tools) and the CDLR Bureau in the more strategic guidance given to the Centre.

9.       New relations with the Congress

Congress input in the capacity-building work is very important. Relations with the Congress could be improved beyond the various co-operation initiatives already presented. The following measures are suggested for the moment and the list could be further enlarged in the light of the future discussions in the Advisory Board:

10.     New relations with the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance

Relations between the Centre of Expertise and the Strategy need to remain very close since the  Centre developed the Strategy (prior to the Valencia ministerial conference) and assisted in the development of its tools, benchmarks and procedures.

Having regard to the gradual implementation of the Strategy and the need to promote it across Europe, all promotional activities relating to the Centre and its programmes should also include the Strategy.

The Centre should make its tools available - and develop new tools as necessary – to central governments and local authorities committed to the Strategy.

11.     Synergies and transversality: Centre of Expertise, Assistance Programmes and possibly CDLR

The staff working in the field of local and regional democracy (CDLR, Assistance Programmes, Centre of Expertise, Strategy) is very small. There is value in trying to ensure a certain degree of transversality: CDLR staff could ensure project management in certain countries; staff of the Assistance Programmes and Centre of Expertise could be invited to contribute to the work of the CDLR; staff currently doing only legislative assistance could also implement capacity building; all staff should be involved in supporting and promoting the Strategy etc.

Practical implementation work could strengthen the work of developing standards and the knowledge base and the other way around; legislative/policy assistance and capacity building may reinforce each other: capacity-building programmes may generate legislative initiatives or inspiration, while new laws may generate new needs for new capacity building. Moreover, the Strategy should inspire new programmes and it should also benefit from knowledge acquired during project implementation.

12.     Staff cross-training and 121 coaching

All staff must be fluent in policy and legislative assistance, capacity building the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance, as well as in the traditional inter-governmental co-operation work.

In order to ensure this, two measures need to be taken:

Appendix – Capacity building "models"

The traditional “capacity-building model”

The current “capacity-building model” has been implemented in a “growth scenario” (always try to attract extra resources in order to increase the number of programmes). This "growth scenario" is however challenged by a number of developments.

         The reluctance of the EC to deal directly with the Council of Europe

The Commission is ever less likely to pass contracts with us directly. Or, there are three sets of problems with participating in tenders:

         The downscaling of voluntary contributions

Voluntary contributions by member states were last year at a very low level, in particular because of the financial crisis. Moreover, these contributions also raise certain problems:

         Declining to form  public-private partnerships (PPPs)

A possible counter to these trends, the creation of PPPs for joint application for EC money, has been rejected, for obvious reasons (difficulty in sharing risks, responsibilities and budgets).

Can a “capacity-building model” based on a growth scenario be saved?

There are a number of steps that could ensure the continuation of the “growth scenario”:

The “creative model”

The first alternative business model is a model where the Centre only does the development of tools while it stimulates their application by other agencies.

If we accept that the goal of the Centre is to help as many local authorities as possible to improve their capacity and hence the quality of their governance rather than to deliver itself as many programmes as possible, than we can have a different business model. The Centre can continue to work on the development of the tools but encourage other organisations and/or agencies to use them in order to implement capacity-building programmes on this basis.

Can the Centre do this?

The Centre has a number of advantages which could help:

The Centre has already worked according to this model: in the joint application for Matra funding with VNG International, the Centre promised its Toolkit II, €10,000 over two years, some management time, and two of its experts. The same happens in Georgia, where OSCE is delivering capacity-building based on the Centre’s programmes, while the Centre only contributes a tiny budget and very little management time. The same is true in the case of the current joint application with ALDA for implementing a citizen participation programme in Lille.

“Softer touch” versions have been offered to the French OPPALE (who appreciated the European experience and the support of the Council of Europe in the field of performance management) or to INET, in particular for the training sessions it offered on the same topic to its short-term students (senior local government staff), trainings that were systematically highly evaluated by students.

This way, the Centre can maximise its impact and ensure that a full programme based on its tools be implemented for a small investment (a few days worth of staff time and a very small amount of money) which otherwise would have covered e.g. around 5% of the programme.

Ideally, the “creative model” could contribute to finance a “growth scenario”: instead of contributing money to such joint programmes, the Centre could try to negotiate in order to obtain extra resources. One could even think of an accreditation procedure, whereas the Centre would grant the authorisation to use its tools and possibly deliver some training to ensure proper handling of the tools in exchange of a fee.

Is the Centre in the position to try to develop such a model? Probably not. It is yet too young, too small and it has too limited resources. Moreover, organisations have a tendency to be fond of their own tools (and tool development can be a lucrative business) so it is unlikely that many of them would require accreditation/training to the use of the Centre’s tools.

The “clearing house model”

From its very creation, the Centre has strived to create a network of partners, national governments, associations and local authorities (“clients”), donors, as well as development/implementation partners (“competition”). Several meetings of donors and implementation partners were organised.

The Centre could try to "turn the table" and create a partnership with donors, while giving up being among applicants. The Centre could therefore create and “arbitrate” a network of donors who would discuss the merits of respective fields and priorities of activities. They would exchange information concerning funded projects and local partners in order to avoid the current situation where there is a lot of duplication, lack of synergies, overlapping and holes in the net.

The Centre could offer the frame for orienting action and priorities: the Charter and its monitoring reports; the Strategy and its needs analysis; National Work Programmes. It could ensure the necessary exchange of information about projects to be funded. It could organise one or two annual meetings to discuss, possibly country by country, the priority areas of local and regional government where projects should be funded. It would create a database of projects, experts, donors and implementing agencies.

The Centre has the advantage of having the Council of Europe behind it, which offers not only credibility but also instruments for assessing needs. It remains however, as already mentioned, young, small and with limited resources.

Such new model  would also mean the end of the growth scenario, as the Centre could not be both player and referee (orient the choices but also apply for funding its own projects).

The “Strategy agency model”

Both the Strategy and the Centre have very limited resources. They both try to be as practical as possible. They make use of assessment tools. The Centre was instrumental in the creation of the Strategy and in particular in the conception of its Quality Label. It is very likely that needs analysis generated by the Strategy would require capacity-building tools that the Centre will need to find and/or develop and offer to local ownership.

The Centre could therefore become the “operational arm” of the Strategy, developing tools and, where appropriate, delivering (or helping to deliver) programmes based on them.

Of course, this is not a “growth scenario” in the sense that the Centre (notwithstanding some unlikely huge external funding for the Strategy) would not be able to count on more than its current project managers. However, in this case, with its very limited human resources, the Centre would no longer be able to offer a lot of services to countries other that those which implement the Strategy.

The “trainer model”

Actual capacity-building programme implementation is very management intensive: a typical programme has maybe twenty steps, each of them important for the final result; they are innovative and there is little experience (in particular in Eastern countries) with the types of instruments and methodologies employed; even international experts brought in the implementation process need, more often than not, to be “trained” to the tools the Centre develops and uses.

A possible paradigm switch would be to turn from the (human intensive) capacity-building programmes to (more traditional and less intensive) training programmes. Of course, this does not mean the typical organisation of seminars and other one-off events. It would mean ensuring that its expertise is put to use by leveraging organisation in order to offer modern training based on practical and interactive approaches.

The Centre is already doing this in the form of the Leadership Academy Programme (LAP) which has been offered by the Russian North-West Academy of Public Administration. In its future Human Resources Management Toolkit, one of the tools will be based on 3-4-day seminars. These programmes are somewhat in between training and capacity-building: they have the form of seminars, but are based on benchmarks, self-assessment, one-to-one peer coaching and personal improvement plans.

The Management Centre of Innsbruck is willing to develop a training programme on local governance based on the Strategy and under the patronage of the Council of Europe. The Centre could also develop training curricula for the Schools of Political Studies, the Schools of Local Democracy, the Regional School of Public Administration...  Good Governance trainings based on modern, participative methods, including assessment, benchmarking, role playing, one-to-one, 360° etc. would probably find a “market”.