MCL-16(2009)3

                  Council of Europe Conference

of Ministers responsible

for Local and Regional Government

                “Good local and regional governance in

             turbulent times: the challenge of change”

                16th Session, Utrecht, 16 - 17 November 2009

The Kiviniemi report : « How to enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy ? »

                       

HOW TO ENHANCE THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN THE FIELD OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY?

16 April 2009

Mrs Mari KIVINIEMI

Minister of Public Administration and Local Government of Finland

Introduction

At the 15^th session of our ministerial conference in Valencia in October 2007, my colleagues entrusted me with the responsibility of drawing up a report on how to develop the work of the Council of Europe in the area of local and regional government.

This report has been drafted – in accordance with the mandate from Valencia – in close co-operation with all the member states of the Council of Europe. Two rounds of written consultations have been organised. The first round took place in spring 2008. A letter was addressed to the responsible government member(s) of each member state, and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, consisting of only a few very general and fairly political questions. The objective was to encourage ministers to reflect their views on the work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional government now and in the future. After an analysis of these replies, a more detailed questionnaire was sent to the ministries in summer 2008.

The contents of initial versions of the report have been discussed in a number of bi- and multilateral meetings with my ministerial colleagues, ministry officials and the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. My warmest thanks to all of them for their constructive co-operation.

This document is the outcome of these consultations. The proposals presented here will be submitted to the next session of the ministerial conference in Utrecht, the Netherlands, in November 2009, which will take the appropriate decisions or recommendations.

***

Local democracy is a cornerstone of democracy in all European states.

Almost all members of the Council of Europe have ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government, thus recognising that effective and democratic local government is an inseparable part of their democratic structure.

The mere existence of local and regional self-government institutions is not enough. What matters is the quality of democratic life at a local and regional level – in other words, governance. We must ensure that institutions focus on delivering for the people and not for themselves; that people are put first.  The most concrete action related to people’s social rights is taken at a local level. Those who are most exposed – children, elderly people, ethnic minorities, those who are physically or mentally challenged and so on – are the ones to face human rights issues on a daily basis in their own local environment.

Local and regional democracy is an issue worth discussing and working on between European states. Whatever the perspective, local and regional democracy is an issue in all countries: to secure an optimal level of services for citizens in the quest for efficiency and economies of scale; the need to rationalise the territorial setting of the state; the need to bridge the gap between communities, citizens, and institutions; to make democratic life vibrant, and prevent exclusion; and to meet the legitimate expectations of those living in the community.

Learning from each other through the exchange of information builds on the common basis that the European states share in their legal traditions and institutions. More importantly still, they have a fundamental common objective: to deliver to their citizens the best possible quality of local and regional governance. In the era of globalisation and democratic demand, states are under both external and internal pressure to perform. European states must continuously develop and adapt themselves and need the opportunity to learn from each other in how to tackle these challenges.

The Council of Europe is ideally suited to cater to the “Learning State” in the area of local and regional democracy.

First of all, it can broach the issue from all angles: democracy, citizen participation, local finance, institutions of local democracy, and relationships with central government organisations. Other intergovernmental organisations can only deal with sectoral aspects.

Secondly, it offers an institutional structure that brings together all relevant actors: the Ministers and public servants of foreign affairs through the Committee of Ministers; the Ministers responsible for local and regional government through their Ministerial conference; the central government public servants through the Steering Committee (European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy, CDLR) and expert committees; national parliamentarians through the Parliamentary Assembly; non-governmental organisations through the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations; and elected local and regional representatives through the Congress. A prerequisite for efficient work is a well functioning relationship between the intergovernmental side (CDLR and the Committee of Ministers) and the Congress. The Congress has, on its side, engaged in an internal reform process that should be concluded in late 2009.

Thirdly, it provides strong methodology and tools. In addition to a wide-ranging normative acquis, a solid base of information, knowledge and know-how has been developed.

Fourthly, the Council of Europe has become more and more active in the field of implementation of standards and in servicing the concrete needs of individual member states. This is a relatively new trend that has so far been made available especially to the most recent member states. Programmes for democratic stability and the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform are powerful instruments for country-specific work, which provide assistance to governments in the field of legislative reforms and to local authorities and their associations in the field of capacity building. 

***

At regular intervals most organisations need to ask themselves: Are we producing something worth the resources our members are spending? Are we doing the right things? How can we become better? What next? This report aims at answering these questions regarding the promotion of local and regional democracy by the Council of Europe.

The fundamental question is: Is there any use for the promotion of local and regional democracy by the Council of Europe?  Our answer is: Yes, but it needs to evolve as the world around us evolves. There are a number of measures that need to be taken in order to update the form of the work. The focus of this report is on working methods and not so much on the content of the work. Our strong belief is that through some changes in working methods we can reach our goal – well-functioning local and regional democracy for the largest possible number of people – more efficiently.

This report has two over-arching principles. Firstly, the budgetary constraint sets the framework for all activities. There is no increase in sight for the budget. On the one hand, none of the proposals put forward in this report would require significant additional expenditure. On the other hand, the current level of resources obviously conditions the outcomes that may be expected. Where additional activity is proposed, possibilities for external financing are kept in mind.

Secondly, the work of the Council of Europe in the field of promoting local and regional democracy deserves a higher public profile. This is such an important issue that it should not be compartmentalised. Efficient communication rather needs to be an all-encompassing principle in everything that is being done at all levels of government.

The four pillars of the organisational evolution put forward are:

1. Stronger ownership by member states
2. Improved co-operation with international players
3. Increased organisational flexibility and efficiency
4. Opening up

 1             Stronger ownership by member states

The intergovernmental work of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy aspires to contribute towards attaining the goal of “greater unity” between member states. It currently performs four main functions:

a) Exchange of information and practice between member countries – building up common knowledge and know-how;

(b) Development of common standards, guidelines (conventions, recommendations, major reports) and tools;

(c) Promotion of and assistance in the implementation of or compliance with standards;

(d) Evaluation of results.

The Committee of Ministers makes the choice of activities. Committees of senior officials from the competent ministries (the so-called Steering Committees, including the CDLR, which is responsible for local and regional democracy) make proposals for activities, drawing on the political orientation given by the Ministerial Conference and are entrusted with their implementation at the level of the Council of Europe.

The other institutions in the Council of Europe that contribute to the promotion of local democracy are the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Human Rights Commissioner and the European Court of Human Rights. A well-functioning interplay between these actors is of fundamental importance.

Activities of an organisation such as the Council of Europe are based on the will of the member states. The secretariat plays an important role but it cannot take the responsibility for the political steering of the work. This is the job of governments.

On the ever more complex and compact European playing field, member states run the risk of losing sight of the unique opportunities the Council of Europe offers and the specific modus operandi required to achieve maximum effectiveness.

For instance, it is important to remember that, unlike the EU, the Council of Europe is neither a further level of government where detailed and legally binding norms are created nor is it a source of major financial transfers.

A further aspect of the work of the Council of Europe in general is the regrettable fact that sectoral ministers do not always have the will or the possibility to take ownership of the co-operation they are involved in. The CoE is run by foreign ministries, whose perception of the political value of sectoral co-operation is influenced by their goals, which are, quite naturally, related to issues such as conflict-solving concerns and post-crisis intervention. In metaphorical terms, there is a tendency to use the acquis of the CoE to restore a broken house rather than using it as a tool for home-improvement and maintenance.

 1.1.              The Committee of Ministers should enhance the role of the Ministerial Conference, as this will create a win-win situation. A more effective relationship, as described in the Committee of Ministers Resolution (89)40, between the two will enhance the overall importance and effectiveness of the Council of Europe’s actions. To that end, effective communication channels should be established both at the domestic level (so that the ministries of foreign affairs are briefed and instructed about the local and regional democracy issues on the Committee of Ministers’ agenda) and at the European level (intensified dialogue with the Committee of Ministers, before and after a ministerial conference, including sessions at ministerial level).

 1.2.              The potential of the services provided by the Council of Europe is not yet fully realised. The relatively new trend of providing services to individual member states in the field of implementation of standards and assistance has especially interested the most recent member states. There is no inherent reason why “older” member states should not make use of the same expertise. The older member states could get a higher return on their resources spent if they used in their administrative reforms the know-how acquired by the Council of Europe directly or through the co-operation mechanisms in the CoE framework.

 1.3.              The member states need to show a higher degree of commitment by active participation in the work of the working groups. They must pay more attention to what qualities their representatives have. Officials from the respective units need to have a sufficient seniority and capacity – both in substance and working languages – to share information, enter into negotiations and make commitments. Equally important is to emphasise the need for a well-functioning relationship between the responsible ministry and the Permanent Representation in Strasbourg.

 1.4.              The use of rapporteurs, recently embarked upon, needs to be set as a standing practice. This means that each project has a member of the relevant expert committee that takes an overseeing role in the process. The rapporteurship would be voluntary and such structures need to be created so that no government feels left out or overburdened. Being a rapporteur should not involve any increase in expenditure.

 1.5.              It should also be considered whether there is a need to create a position of spokesperson for the common agenda on local and regional democracy. This spokesperson should be from a ministerial level and he/she could be used for promoting awareness about the CoE’s work internationally. The spokesperson should be selected on a rotational basis for a term of 2 years, i.e. in accordance with the rhythm of sessions of the Ministerial Conference.

 1.6.              All meeting activities need not take place in Strasbourg. Organising a meeting gives the host government a stronger sense of ownership to the project, and opportunities for this need to be created. There are good experiences of regional and thematic workshops that member countries have organised. This practice should be encouraged. Also the possibility for a member country to host an annual expert or steering committee meeting should be considered.

 1.7.           The importance of keeping the information channels open between ministries and members of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities cannot be emphasised enough. Since the Congress is the source of several initiatives, it is of the utmost importance that the members of the national delegation of the Congress are aware of the position of the respective government and vice-versa.

 1.8.           Another important partner in the promotion of local and regional democracy is the countries’ association(s) of local (and/or regional) authorities. Without their co-operation both the preparation and the implementation of projects is meaningless.

 1.9.           Among the different stakeholders – governments, CoE secretariat, and other organisations – the understanding of European local and regional governance could be greatly enhanced through secondments or exchange programmes for officials as well as the organisation of dedicated summer/winter schools.

 2        Efficient co-operation with international players

In the mandate for drafting this report, the CoE’s relations with the European Union and the OECD were emphasised. However, questions concerning local democracy are not in the competences of the OECD and the EU.  Nevertheless, the indirect effects of the policy recommendations by the OECD and legislation from the EU may sometimes have quite strong implications for local government (Directives on Public Procurement, Services, and Landfill Waste are well-known examples).

When discussing the development of co-operation with other international organisations, the following figures should be borne in mind: the Council of Europe has 47 members. Of these 27 belong to the EU and 23 to the OECD. 19 countries belong to all three organisations.

Relations between the Council of Europe and the OECD date back to the origins of the OECD. Since the creation of the OECD, and during the activity of its predecessor, the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has acted as its parliamentary forum. Thus, the possibilities and potential for co-operation between the two organisations have been strengthened in a long-standing tradition of mutual support and have taken place in particular at a parliamentary level.

The different approaches of the Council of Europe (more focused on human rights, democracy, the rule of law, social matters, culture and education) and the OECD (more economic and market oriented) can be complementary in the areas of, among other things, good governance, social affairs, and local and regional democracy.

Another international organisation that is a partner of the Council of Europe is the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). All members of the Council of Europe are also participating states in the OSCE. It has a strong human rights dimension in its activities with a separate Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The OSCE has vast experience of election observation and other field operations. The co-operation between the CoE and the OSCE in the field of local and regional democracy has been bolstered by the recent co-operation agreement signed by the two Secretaries-General.

The relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union are outlined on a general level in the Memorandum of Understanding (10-11 May 2007) where it is stated in paragraph 29 that (...) They will endeavour to promote local democracy in view of the contribution which it can make to the achievement of their shared objectives. The most important of the shared objectives in this context is the promotion of democracy and citizens’ participation. The Congress, the Committee of the Regions and the Centre of Expertise are mentioned as instruments.

The EU is an actor in local government research and development. Between the member states of the EU a number of informal structures have been established that partly overlap the activities of the CoE, such as the annual meetings for the High Level Group on Governance and the EU Public Administration Network. The Committee of the Regions (CoR) is the EU institution that has most interest in the issues related to local government. The CoR has a consultative role in the EU decision-making process. Many of its members also belong to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and the two institutions co-operate in matters like local election observation.

On 6 September 2006, the Committee of Ministers approved a draft resolution on co-operation between the United Nations and the Council of Europe, which was subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 November 2006. In the resolution, the Committee of the Ministers (...) welcomed fruitful co-operation between the United Nations and the Council of Europe in the area of democracy, good governance and education for democratic citizenship and human rights (...) and encouraged the development of co-operation between the UN Peace-building Commission and the CoE, with a view to promoting post-conflict re-establishment and consolidation of peace in Europe.

At the global level, United Nations Habitat can promote general principles, but on a scale that is beyond Europe. Habitat has adopted Guidelines on decentralisation and the strengthening of local authorities, which derive from the European Charter of Local Self Government.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe stated on 14 March 2007 that  (...) in light of the experience accumulated in the Council of Europe on issues of decentralisation and strengthening of local authorities, such as assisting countries with implementation, it is at the disposal of UN-HABITAT to explore together whether and if so how co-operation could be developed. 

 2.1    Although not all member states of the Council of Europe are members of the EU and the OECD, the non-member countries also often face indirect effects from their work. (The countries of the European Economic Area face even direct normative effects from the decisions taken in the EU.) There need to be channels and mechanisms for these countries to receive and give information about ongoing proceedings that could have an impact. This can be best achieved by improved information exchange between the secretariats with the lightest possible administrative burden. EU states should indicate the projects under preparation that potentially have an impact on local and regional democracy related issues.

 2.2    Since the Council of Europe, the European Union, the OSCE and the OECD are inter-governmental structures, proper co-ordination between them is impossible without proper co-ordination between governments and within governments. The member states need to secure clear communication channels between their administrative entities responsible for the respective structures. Member countries should have a look at their intra-governmental structures in order to have a coherent approach. Equally important is that information about possible implications is shared between member states before decisions are taken in these other international fora. Close co-operation with the representatives of responsible ministries and the Foreign Ministry is of paramount importance.

 2.3    There are great opportunities for thematic joint projects with the OECD and the EU. Compared to these other organisations, the CoE has the benefit of close contacts with different types of stakeholders and also a wider variety of countries. The complementarity of work between the Council of Europe and OECD especially in the field of local finance should be enhanced.

 2.4    Three aspects of the activities undertaken by the EU are worth considering: Firstly, the increased role of civilian crisis management. The Council of Europe should consider how synergies in this field could be enhanced without forgetting the important role of the UN.

 2.5    Secondly, Eurostat, which provides the European Union with statistics at the European level and harmonises statistics in order to make them more comparable, could co-operate with the Council of Europe in harmonising the terminology that is used for studying local and regional governance.

 2.6    Thirdly, there are demands for the EU to include the prerequisite of good governance in its assistance programmes. The CoE would be able to contribute necessary instruments for this.

 2.7    A range of activities in the field of promotion of local and regional democracy and good governance could be covered by the Council of Europe/OECD co-operation, ranging from the exchange of information and experts to joint publications and the organisation of activities like seminars and workshops.

 2.8    Existing dialogue with the OSCE in the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two organisations could be enhanced in order to better identify the needs of some member countries and provide qualified and up-to-date assistance to decentralisation processes.

 2.9    Several member states implement bilateral or multilateral assistance programmes of their own and there is a need for further co-ordination of efforts. Member states should request information from the Council of Europe when launching assistance activities so that in a given country or at a regional level, there are no conflicts of goals, and resources are directed to fields that are singled out – by the beneficiary state’s authorities and the CoE – as requiring initiative and support.

 2.10 The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is another body that could benefit from the know-how of the Council of Europe in developing democratic structures at the local level. Co-operation with the Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS is developing and should be enhanced (a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and UNDP/RBEC has been signed in April 2009). Member states should be aware of the acquis and instruments of the Council of Europe – including the Centre of Expertise – also in the framework of the UNDP co-operation programmes they support or make use of.

 3        Increased organisational flexibility and efficiency

In the Action Plan adopted by the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe in Warsaw on 16-17 May 2005, the Committee of Ministers and the Secretariat General were asked to give impetus to the reform process of the CoE’s structure and working methods. The reform work started the same year and is being concluded during this year.

There is no need for re-organisation of the entities responsible for the promotion of local democracy. Some positive structural changes (cutting down the number of expert committees, creation of the Centre of Expertise) have been achieved recently.

However, the replies by the member states to the questionnaires brought up some proposals for improvement that are worth further discussion:

3.1.      The budget question deserves reflection before anything else, since it requires serious consideration at the level of the entire Council of Europe. There are no reasons to expect any budget increase in the foreseeable future: most likely, the zero-real-growth policy will continue in the resources of the CDLR and its secretariat. On the other hand, thanks to the establishment of the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, there are increased opportunities to channel project financing. Through improved budgeting at the level of the whole of the Council of Europe (true multi-annuality, devolution of responsibilities), it would be possible to make more of the resources available for the chosen priorities.

3.2.      We need to concentrate our activities in the areas where most added value can be found. The Ministerial Conference needs to define carefully the strategic goals of the work to be done. There is a clear demand for efficient exchange of information between member states, and the Council of Europe must take due account of that need.

3.3.       As mentioned in the first chapter, the workshop method is a useful tool when working on themes that interest only a limited number of member countries and when the anticipated results are other than legally binding texts. The use of this method should be encouraged.

3.4.      The existence of the Centre of Expertise has created a possibility to obtain external financing for co-operation with different actors. This opportunity is of great value to all member states and the future potential of it should be analysed comprehensively.

3.5.      The co-operation with the Congress is crucial for the efficient functioning of work in the field of local democracy. The present situation needs to be critically reviewed, and open-minded new solutions need to be sought together with the Congress in order to secure high quality of outcomes and to avoid wasting resources. Ideally, the intergovernmental sector and the Congress would be able to facilitate each other’s work so that projects can be dealt with swiftly and without excessive inter- and intra-institutional to-ing and fro-ing.

3.6.      Already the identification of challenges, goals and actions could greatly benefit from the input of the Congress. The “local and regional democracy agenda” of the Council of Europe should, as far as possible, reflect a common understanding by the ministers and the representatives of the local authorities. The Congress and the ministerial conference should improve their dialogue on agenda-setting.

3.7.      The Congress and the CDLR should jointly start improving the concept of country monitoring. Such aspects as the systematisation of monitoring projects, priority setting, follow-up and NGO involvement need to be addressed in this context.

3.8.      The CDLR and its expert committees meet usually twice a year in Strasbourg. Meetings take 2-3 days. In expert committees, some representatives of member state governments receive a reimbursement for travelling and accommodation costs. The meeting routines in the CDLR and expert committees have been under review, and good proposals have been put forward aimed at making the meetings more active and efficient.

3.8.1.             There is always a number of projects on the agendas of expert committee meetings that are “for information” and which do not require extensive debate. A similar group of topics is the non-controversial issues in CDLR agendas that only require formal approval. These matters could be classified as “B” points, which could be taken en bloc in the middle of the meeting. If a national delegation wants to have a more thorough discussion on a “B” point, a request to the secretariat 10 days before the meeting should suffice. Presentations and other topics that are not necessarily relevant for all member states could be classified as “C” points which are moved outside the official meetings to workshops for those who are interested in that specific issue. The core of meetings consists of “A-points” on which a consensus has not yet been reached. The largest share of meeting time should be reserved for these issues.

3.8.2.              A normal time span of a project depends on its form: to process a study takes 1-2 years, a project of a legislative nature several years and a simple working document 6 months.  As can be seen, the times required are relatively long. A simple way of raising awareness about the use of time and of underlining the swiftness of the procedure would be to always include the time line of the project in the relevant documents. The time line should clearly state what has happened and when, and also tell how the process will continue in the future.

3.8.3.             The 3-week deadline for meeting documents needs to be maintained and adhered to. This is required for facilitating the participants’ meeting preparations by allowing more time for background work. Sufficient time would also encourage written reactions to the proposals that, in turn, help the chair’s task of keeping the meeting efficiently structured.

3.9.      Country reports (“Structure and operation of local and regional democracy”) are prepared by the government of the country in question and edited by the CDLR secretariat. They are regarded as a very useful source of information and they should be made more easily available to a wider audience. New internet-based ways are being examined to facilitate more frequent updating and to make cross-Europe comparisons possible.

3.10.    The functioning of work in the promotion of local and regional democracy should be reviewed regularly, both from the political and the administrative perspective. These evaluations should be carried out by external experts.

4          Opening up

Gaining more visibility and opening up are essential issues for the future activities of the Council of Europe in the field of local and regional democracy. The results of the work need to be made available in a more efficient way. Any work, however well carried out, is futile if the intended target groups remain unaware of its results. Expenditure is difficult to defend if the outputs are difficult to see and activities are not known. Communication is not a question that can be compartmentalised – on the contrary; it is very much a horizontal issue that needs to be taken into account in all activities and at all levels in member states of the Council of Europe.

4.1          The first aspect is creating a comprehensive communication strategy for the CDLR in partnership with the ministries of member states. The strategy should give guidelines for internal and external communications in order to support the objectives of the three previous chapters. In this context, it is not appropriate to give detailed instructions on what this strategy should include and what measures should be taken, but the objective is clear: visibility and transparency need to be improved, seizing the opportunities that modern information technology provides.

4.2          The second aspect is opening up towards civic society. In addition to the NGOs that are invited to the official meetings[1], there is a plethora of organisations that could be interested in the work, particularly as it leads to concrete action at local level. Awareness needs to be raised about procedures for their involvement – particularly through the structures of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe – and efforts must be enhanced for keeping them informed. Workshops organised by member states within the CoE context should be open to the relevant NGOs.

4.3          The enhanced performance of the Council of Europe in serving the needs of all its member states in the field of local and regional democracy should enable the Council of Europe to attain a level of international political and technical credibility that would make it possible to take on a further, fundamentally political, challenge: making expertise available to the countries that need it but are situated outside the boundaries of the Council of Europe. This question was already lightly touched upon in chapter Efficient co-operation with international players when discussing election monitoring, civilian crisis management and the co-operation with UN organisations. This, however, is an issue of such fundamental nature that it should be resolved at the level of the entire Council of Europe. Nonetheless, it is also a question which requires an answer sooner rather than later.