télécharger le format jpg

MCL-17(2011)9

            Council of Europe Conference

of Ministers responsible

for Local and Regional Government

        17th Session, Kyiv, 3 - 4 November 2011


Outlook to the future

Report on the implementation of the

Utrecht Agenda and Utrecht Declaration II by member States


Table of Contents

Introduction

I.        Actions undertaken by member States to address the challenges identified in the Utrecht Agenda

II.       Steps and measures implemented by the member States to strengthen cooperation further to the report on “How to enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy” – the Kiviniemi report

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

IV.      Conclusions

Addendum I: Actions undertaken by member States  to address the challenges identified in the Utrecht Agenda

Addendum II:  Political importance of challenges per member State

Addendum III:  Aggregate overview of political importance of challenges

Addendum IV: Follow-up given to the Council of Europe’s acquis on local and regional democracy

In July 2011 thirty member States responded to the questionnaire aimed at obtaining information concerning three main areas:

1)   Actions taken domestically to respond to the seven priority challenges identified in the Utrecht Agenda;

2)   Steps and measures taken domestically to implement the Kiviniemi report (Utrecht Declaration II);

3)   Follow-up given to the Council of Europe acquis on local and regional democracy.


Introduction

The European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government, meeting in Utrecht on 16 and 17 November 2009 for the 16th Conference Session, adopted the “The Utrecht Agenda For Delivering Good Local And Regional Governance (2010-2013)”. Having reviewed the satisfactory results achieved under the Budapest Agenda over the years 2005-2009, the ministers agreed to pursue the objective of delivering good local and regional governance in respective member States whilst contributing to and making use of the Council of Europe and its work to the greatest possible extent.

In Utrecht, the European ministers also adopted a Declaration on the steps and measures to strengthen co-operation further to the report on “How to enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy” (the Kiviniemi report).

The present report takes stock of (1) the steps and measures undertaken by individual member States to implement the Utrecht Agenda, (2) the follow-up given to implement the Kiviniemi report (Utrecht Declaration II), and (3) the follow-up given to the Council of Europe's acquis on local and regional democracy. The information was collected through a comprehensive questionnaire.

In 2011, thirty member States[1] replied to the questionnaire structured in such a way as to obtain information concerning three main areas. The first part concerned the actions taken domestically to respond to the seven priority challenges identified in the Utrecht Agenda. Member States were invited to identify the actions or activities undertaken at domestic level to meet the challenges as well as the time frame, political importance, technical complexity, expected results and involvement of local and/or regional authorities. The second part of the questionnaire referred to the Kiviniemi report “How to enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy”, and looked for information to the steps and measures taken domestically (Utrecht Declaration II). The third questionnaire referred to the dissemination of the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental acquis. Member States were invited to provide information concerning translation, dissemination, feedback collected and use made of treaties and recommendations in local and regional democracy, as well as, of the handbooks and European practice reports.

The Addenda to this report contain the summaries of the replies and summary tables and graphs pertaining to each of the three parts of the questionnaire. The main results are set out below. It should be borne in mind that the report is based exclusively on the replies given by member States.


I.         Actions undertaken by member States in respect of the challenges       identified in the Utrecht Agenda

Having expressed their individual positions on the challenges to the respective systems of local and regional democracy, in Utrecht, European ministers collectively identified and prioritised (by electronic vote) the following challenges as being of particular common interest:

Challenges

1

Managing the impact of the current financial/economic crisis

2

Addressing the low level of democratic participation in public life at local and regional level

3

Reducing the complexity and cost of the current system of local and regional government and enhancing its efficiency

4

Enhancing the capacity for and quality of governance in local and regional communities or authorities

5

Addressing the impact of demographic/migration trends

6

Improving access to public services delivered at local and regional level

7

Making it easier for local and regional authorities to co-operate across frontiers

Addendum I gives a descriptive overview of the specific actions and activities undertaken by individual member States to address the seven priority challenges identified in the Utrecht Agenda. It should be borne in mind that challenge 1 “Managing the impact of the current financial/economic crisis” was the subject of a separate questionnaire, and results from the analysis are presented in the report “Local government in critical times: policies for crisis, recovery and sustainable future” (MCL-17(2011)3).


Under challenge 2 “Addressing the low level of democratic participation in public life at local and regional level”member States reported implementation of different activities aimed at increasing electoral and non-electoral participation. Some member States adopted new legislation and/or undertook studies to analyse the current state of affairs in the domain of democratic participation. Based on the results from the studies, a number of member States  amended their existing legislation and adopted specific national strategies. Some member States reported improved voters’ turnout and increased democratic participation as a result of organising awareness raising campaigns, support given to the European Local Democracy Week, implementing pilot projects in their voting systems, introducing new information and communication technologies and implementing a whole range of other specific activities to address this challenge.

Under challenge 3 “Reducing the complexity and cost of the current system of local and regional government and enhancing its efficiency” member States reported one or more of the following actions: revision and update of the existing strategies on decentralisation; adoption of guidelines for functional decentralisation and territorial reorganisation; reform of administrative structures; EU funded pilot projects aiming at modernising local government and improving its efficiency; introducing new E-government solutions; administrative simplification programs; introducing instruments for merging of municipalities and support for inter-municipal cooperation; as well as other legal initiatives aimed at the simplification of the current system of local and regional government.

Under challenge 4 “Enhancing the capacity for and quality of governance in local and regional communities or authorities” most of the member States emphasised that as challenges 3 and 4 are closely related, activities and actions reported to address challenge 3 equally address this challenge. Highlighted initiatives from member States include: capacity building programs for civil servants and plans for establishment of School on Public Administration; pilot projects for devolution of fiscal competencies and support for innovative solutions in tax and land management; EU funding provided in a number of member States to improve performance management; implementation of European Strategy on Innovation and Good Governance; and the boosting of electronic services and restructuring of public services at local and regional level.

From the activities reported by member States to address challenge 5 “Addressing the impact of demographic/migration trends” the following are highlighted:  development of national demographic strategy; studies carried out and reports prepared on demography; establishment of a Demographic Affairs Council to promote a common demographic policy; programmes and measures for the integration of immigrants and families. It should be noted that some member States found this challenge not to be applicable to them and thus undertook no direct activities to address it.


Under challenge 6 “Improving access to public services delivered at local and regional level” member States reported implementation of different E-government and E-services initiatives and solutions. Some member States revised existing relevant legislation in order to optimise the administrative system and rationalise the competences of local and regional authorities.

The activities reported by member States to address challenge 7 “Making it easier for local and regional authorities to co-operate across frontiers”are: preparatory activities to ratify the 3rd Protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation; ratification of the 3rd Protocol to the Madrid Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation; adaptation of national legislation to the Council of Europe acquis; implementation of cross border co-operation programmes under the EU Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA); and support for participation in INTERREG programmes.

Addendum II using tables and graphs gives an overview of the political importance of challenges per member State, whilst Addendum III presents the aggregate overview of the political importance given to the challenges by member States.

On the basis of information available, the conclusion may be drawn that the first challenge identified in Utrecht “Managing the impact of the current financial/economic crisis” still is of the highest political importance to member States. When invited to rank the political importance from 5 as very high to 1 as very low, 50% of respondent countries considered that challenge number one has the highest political importance. Member States ranking of the political importance of the other challenges is as follows:

Political importance

Challenge 1

Challenge 2

Challenge 3

Challenge 4

Challenge 5

Challenge 6

Challenge 7

Very high

 50,00%

29,88%

25,55%

17,86%

33,33%

30,96%

12,99%

High

23,74%

25,28%

54,33%

50,00%

33,33%

40,36%

28,56%

Medium

22,50%

37,94%

13,34%

21,43%

13,02%

17,85%

42,86%

Low

3,76%

3,45%

3,34%

3,57%

13,02%

7,15%

15,59%

Very low

/

3,45%

3,34%

7,14%

8.69%

3,58%

/


II.       Steps and measures implemented by the member States to strengthen cooperation further to the report on “How to enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy” – the Kiviniemi report

At their 16th session in Utrecht (November 2009), the Ministers agreed, in their Utrecht Declaration) to review their domestic working methods and enhance communication channels to improve the effectiveness of international cooperation. In particular this concerns the information and briefing of other ministries about local and regional democracy issues on the Committee of Ministers’ Agenda, ensuring synergies and avoiding divergences with the Council of Europe acquis and activities as well as timely exchange of information between Council of Europe member States when acting in other international organisations or structures.

Replies to the survey on the implementation of these measures were received from 20 countries. It is to be noted that the CDLR was not yet in a position to consider the results of the survey it conducted and may therefore do so at a later stage.

Most replies report that the measures agreed to are fully implemented. Partial, on-going or planned implementation is reported in about one third of replies concerning each of the measures. Replies, though necessarily brief, show the existence of different ways of achieving implementation (e.g. ad hoc meetings, permanent structures). Such examples may be useful to explore further in an exchange of practice at the level of the CDLR. Given that the desired measures need to be kept up under ever-changing circumstances, attention to them remains important, also in countries where they are currently fully implemented.

The survey also addressed the range of steps and measures in following up to the Kiviniemi report agreed to by Ministers and appended to the Utrecht Declaration. These aim to ensure strong ownership by member States, efficient cooperation with other international players, strengthened organisational flexibility and efficiency and encourage opening up.

Here too it is to be noted that the CDLR was not yet in a position to consider the results of the survey but may do so at a later stage. The survey suggests that a considerable number of measures have been implemented, but both the fairly low number of replies and their necessary brevity make it difficult to arrive at a qualitative assessment.

It may be hoped that by the time of the completion of the Utrecht Agenda (December 2013) it will be possible to give a fuller – and hopefully positive – picture of the measures taken on follow up to the Kiviniemi report.


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

At the 16th Session of the Ministerial Conference in Utrecht, two Conventions prepared by the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) were opened for member States’ signature: Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities concerning Euroregional Co-operation Groupings (ECGs), (CETS 206) and Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority (CETS 207).

Since 2009, one member State ratified and ten member States signed Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities concerning Euroregional Co-operation Groupings (ECGs). Few countries among signatories reported publication, active dissemination and feedback obtained of this instrument.

The Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority has been ratified by seven and signed by eight member States. A few countries among the signatories reported publication, active dissemination and feedback obtained of the Additional Protocol.

Recommendation R(2009)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the evaluation, auditing and monitoring of participation and participation policies at local and regional level was not included in Utrecht survey since it was adopted early in 2009. Since its adoption, five member States reported translation and two member States reported use made of the Recommendation R(2009)2.

Addendum IV to this document gives a detailed overview of the follow up given to the Council of Europe’s acquis in the field of local and regional democracy by member States.

Since the last ministerial conference (Utrecht, November 2009), only a very small number of member States claim to have taken measures as regards the translation, publication and active distribution of Council of Europe instruments (standards and information bases). Of the 30 states which took part in the survey, a maximum of seven, but generally only two to three per “standard” or per “document from the information base” indicate that they have given some publicity to the Council of Europe’s work in this field. Instruments which achieve a high “score” are Recommendation Rec(2001)19 on the participation of citizens in local public life (nine countries reported use made of this instrument), Good practices in inter municipal co-operation (2007) and the Manual of the CDLR on intermunicipal co-operation  (seven replies on the use made of it).


IV.      Conclusions

Although the participation of thirty member States (63,8%) in this survey gives a relatively high representative sample, it remains very difficult to draw qualitative conclusions from a quantitative analysis.

The overall picture that appears from this survey is that member States are taking many steps and measures to respond to the challenges identified in Utrecht. National actions cover a wide range of possible responses to a given challenge, spanning from very formal measures of a legal nature (adopting new or amending the existing legislation, rules and regulations), very informal and communicative measures (awareness campaigns), and also including changes to the structure of local and regional authorities or their methods of operation. An important observation is that member States are following the latest developments in the area of information and communication technology, thus implementation of new and innovative E-government solutions is the most used intervention to respond to one of the challenges.

Ministers could take advantage of the current session to provide more examples or details of action taken at national level to implement the Utrecht Agenda and also, to discuss and to share experience in addressing the challenges.

As regards the political importance given to the seven challenges, it appears that member States consider the first challenge “Managing the impact of the current financial/economic crisis” as the one of the highest political importance (50% of the respondent countries gave this challenge very high political importance). An interesting indicator is the fact that 33,33% of the respondent member States identified challenge number 5 “Addressing the impact of demographic/migration trends” as the one of the high political importance, which suggests that this challenge should be given further consideration.

With regard to the mutual influence between the acquis and national legislation, it appears that although Council of Europe standards and information bases are continuously used, disseminated and promoted, further efforts need to be made in future years to increase the follow up.



[1] Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium (Brussels), Belgium (Flemish Region), Belgium (Wallonia), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,  Switzerland, Turkey.