Rapporteur :
Carlo ANDREOTTI, Italy,
Chamber of Regions
Political Group: EPP/CD

----------------------------------

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. INTRODUCTION¹

The possibilities for developing real and effective regional structures in the South East European (SEE) countries cannot be considered in isolation from the historical, political, socio-economic and security circumstances prevailing in this part of Europe, which all have an impact on decisions concerning these issues. On the other hand, it is obvious too that positive developments in the regionalisation process would create circumstances conducive to development and to the enhancement of democracy and stability in the countries concerned and in the region as a whole, and in this way the conditions would be created for bringing this part of Europe closer to the integration processes, i.e. to the European Union.

This analysis attempts to summarise the current state of regionalisation in the SEE countries, to draw attention to the factors that hinder the process and to put forward some recommendations for improving the situation.

Regionalisation in the SEE countries is a very complex and multifaceted issue and must be viewed from an overall perspective. As already mentioned, the whole spectrum of inter-connected circumstances in each state and in the region as a whole must be taken into account. Because of the region’s demographic make-up, in many countries the issue of regionalisation is closely linked with inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations and with the status of different ethnic groups in the country’s political and administrative structure.

Regionalisation and territorial self-government are frequent topics on the political agenda in the SEE countries and some territorial reforms have been formally carried through. However, a rapid glance at the state of territorial organisation in the SEE countries shows the need to continue with the reforms.

Slovenia is being included in this review of the regionalisation process in South-East Europe, although it is not usually considered as belonging to the group of SEE countries, in order to show the need to carry out an effective territorial reorganisation in this country, which is already a member of the EU. It is still a very centralistic state and does not have a second tier of territorial self-government. Slovenia represents a southern border of the EU with South-East Europe and as such will be able to act as a bridge for the direct transfer of EU experiences to the SEE region, including those in the field of regionalisation.

A second tier of territorial self-government does not exist in Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), in Serbia (except for the special status of the province of Vojvodina) and Montenegro and in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Other countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Moldova and Romania) and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina have some form of territorial unit on the intermediate level between the central state and the municipalities.

Despite the existence of some form of intermediate tier in the countries listed above, one cannot avoid the conclusion that, in general, there is very little real willingness on the part of the different governmental authorities concerned to introduce effective regionalisation. On the contrary, there is often strong opposition from central government, especially towards granting territorial self-government meeting the criteria worked out by Council of Europe bodies.

The establishment of administrative regions instead of regions based on the democratic participation of people in decision-making is often used as a tool for political debate on demands for self-government expressed by certain ethnic communities or as a means of deflecting the calls from political movements for the restoration of forms of regional self-government in ethnically mixed areas that were

abolished in the course of the country’s centralisation process (for instance the autonomy of the Vojvodina region in Serbia and Montenegro).

Administrative regional units are sometimes used as a means of splitting an ethnic community and its territory and thus interfering with the process of development of its common identity and political aspirations (eg the case of Sandjak, on the border between Serbia and Montenegro). In this context Kosovo represents a political, geographical and administrative area of a certain complexity, for which no final model has been defined. The Council of Europe is strongly committed to contributing to the establishment of democratic structures of local self-government in order to stabilise the socio-political development of this territory. The idea of “cantonisation” of Kosovo was recently put forward by the Prime Minister of Serbia, Mr. V. Kostunica, as an element in the process of reaching a final solution for Kosovo and for the status of the Serbian and other minorities in particular. Opponents have seen this proposal as an attempt to create conditions for the division of Kosovo along ethnic lines in the future.

Analysis has shown that the SEE countries are today in general still far from recognising that the regional level constitutes an essential framework for the implementation of central government development decisions and that the regions must be given wide powers in order to achieve efficient and functional territorial administration and organisation of the country. One has the impression that they fail to understand that such territorial organisation is a precondition for a country to be able to achieve, by means of decentralisation, a successful, uniform development of its individual parts and of the country as a whole. Furthermore, SEE countries would be reluctant to allow their regions to become autonomous platforms for micro-spatial cross-border links, based on an extension of their powers to cover matters of common interest in the cross-border area. This approach, which has become the norm in the EU and is considered as the basis for an increasingly spatially integrated Europe, is all too often seen as a threat to national sovereignty in the SEE region.

The general assessment of the situation in South-East Europe would be that all the countries under consideration are still dominated by the principles of centralistic states; the slight formal differences between them do not call this assessment into question. Regional self-government, which does exist in the SEE countries, has been mainly introduced in response to recommendations issued by relevant international institutions and bodies, and not as a genuine attempt to achieve true decentralisation of responsibilities based on adequate financial resources and prompted by national needs. As a result, the structures that do exist at regional level generally lack autonomy in their decision-making and the powers needed to execute vital tasks that are vested in the regional levels elsewhere. And last but not least, regions do not have adequate and sufficient financial resources of their own.

As a result, regions in South-East Europe do not have the instruments and mechanisms needed to play the role of an autonomous administrative unit able to perform essential tasks of social and economic regulation.

2. EVALUATION

After analysing the situation in each SEE country, the general statement can be made that the processes of territorial regionalisation and administrative decentralisation in South-East Europe are clearly lagging behind similar trends elsewhere in Central Europe. These countries have unquestionably changed their attitudes towards decentralised territorial organisation in the last decade and more and have declared their intention to envisage administrative reforms and to introduce genuine territorial self-government. However, implementation of the declared intentions is generally inadequate, insufficient and excessively time-consuming. With their slow administrative and territorial reforms the SEE countries are undoubtedly losing precious time in the so-called “catching-up” process in Europe, the main objective of which is to achieve, in the foreseeable future, social and economic cohesion of the “eastern” and “western” parts of Europe.

The most important factor hindering successful regionalisation is a general lack of experience and detailed information and a prevailing spirit of unpreparedness of political structures to carry out the necessary reforms and reorganisations. These activities should in most cases be a constituent part of the necessary modernisation of political and administrative systems and of the state structure as a whole, which is the condition sine qua non for laying the necessary foundations for socio-economic development, stability and future integration into the European Community framework.

Owing to their recent historical legacy and difficult transition period, the SEE countries are still heavily burdened with rigid social and political structures which are fairly reluctant to introduce extensive state-management reforms. This situation manifests itself in resistance to the introduction of far-reaching reforms designed to reduce the power and competencies of the small political elite who monopolise power in those countries. It should once again be stressed that regionalisation and decentralisation are all too often regarded as a threat to the unity and sovereignty of the unitary nation-state that is still the dominant model for state organisation in South-East Europe.

However, it is not just the central level that opposes regionalisation processes. Resistance to the devolution of certain responsibilities to the regional level is also found at the local and municipal level. Of course, this opposition is not the only factor preventing regionalisation in a given country. The establishment of a large number of small, weak and powerless municipalities is sometimes a tool used by the ruling political elite to preserve the powers of central government, which in any case cannot be challenged by small and powerless local authorities. Here it should be mentioned that all the SEE countries, except Serbia and Montenegro, have already ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Opposition to efficient regionalisation in countries where both levels of decentralisation (regional and local) formally exist might also stem from the inadequacy of legal provisions which do not offer a precise definition of the division of responsibilities and financial resources between the two levels of local democracy – the regions and local authorities.

Governmental structures in the SEE countries have for the most part still not accepted the general approach to the functioning of the modern state, which could be described as “working for the citizens, as close to the citizens as possible”. This has found expression in the principle of subsidiarity as the main basis for territorial organisation in Europe today, as defined by the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The governments of SEE countries are afraid and reluctant to transfer powers to the grass-roots level as they still perceive regionalisation as a possible threat to the integrity of the state and as opening the way to separatist demands from different ethnic communities which form a strong group in certain regions. In this regard regionalisation is often used, as has already been mentioned, as a means of curbing such tendencies when an ethnic group living in a certain area is deliberately separated and divided between different regional administrative units. A lack of confidence in regional elected representatives is another reason for hesitancy in delegating budgetary resources, bearing in mind the different aspects related to the continuing phenomenon of economic, administrative and political corruption.

The general reasons for the persistent lack of interest shown by political structures in territorial reorganisation can be seen in the fact that the SEE countries, except for Slovenia and to some extent also Bulgaria and Romania, are not included in the first and the second waves of the European integration process and are therefore excluded from the regionalisation and spatial reorganisation processes in particular that derive from common European integration schemes.

3. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS

An attempt is made here to put forward some proposals and recommendations for future European policies, and especially those of the Council of Europe and the Congress, aimed at improving the situation in the area under consideration:

The promotion of genuine regional democracy is certainly one of the crucial components of the process of stabilisation and development of the SEE region. It is essential to develop mechanisms for spreading to this part of Europe the information on regionalisation models that exists elsewhere in Europe. When discussing effective region-building, it is reasonable to define three levels of relationships which can influence the functioning of the regional level:

§ state (central government)/region
§ municipalities (local authorities)/region
§ international organisations (primarily the Council of Europe and the EU)/region.

The three basic requirements for efficient policy towards South-East Europe are:

1. the strengthening of regional decision-making powers
2. effective institution-building and
3. staff training.

The promotion of autonomy with the aim of improving inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations in the region is of paramount importance in this framework. Territorial division can either foster the co-existence of different ethnic groups in a certain area and in the country or can be a constant cause of inter-ethnic disagreements and tensions. Unfortunately, there is usually no general solution that would meet the requirements of all the parties involved, and reaching any solution calls for a difficult process of political negotiation.

The preparation by the Council of Europe of a European Convention on Regional Self-Government becomes even more important in this context. It is therefore necessary to continue efforts to secure the adoption of the Charter and its recommendations. The building of effective structures of regional democracy depends on the development of an international legal framework and on the political will to implement it. This can then be a sound basis for working towards the goals set by the EU, the Council of Europe and other international organisations in relation to the region.

It would be desirable to find appropriate means of building a social consensus in the SEE countries about the need for decentralisation of political structures. The SEE countries must be brought to the conviction that regionalisation is a process that makes a country stronger, not weaker.

Regionalisation experiences in EU countries are of course one of the most important examples for South-East Europe. In the transfer of experience attention must be paid especially to the impact of EU policy towards this area. All SEE countries are declaring their wish to join the EU and are – some more, the others less – endeavouring to fulfil the criteria laid down by the EU for accession.

European experiences in this field are thus of paramount importance for stimulating similar processes in the SEE area. Taking into account the specific circumstances, it would be very useful to develop special ways and means for a more efficient transfer of EU countries’ information and experiences concerning regionalisation.

The most significant background factors to European regionalisation should be brought to the attention of the SEE countries in order to establish a rational framework for regionalisation in those countries. It is well known that the European emphasis on regionally organised space originates from a concern to prevent a liberal, barrier-free market from increasing the development disparities between different areas in Europe. In general, there seem to be three motives for the EU to promote the role of regional (and local) self-government, which are certainly relevant also for the SEE countries.

Firstly, a regional structure is the best basis for allocating money (top-down perspective). When it comes to achieving predefined goals, a geographical approach is preferable to sectoral policies, which can easily get lost in the vast European space.

Secondly, recent experiences show that the regional approach to the promotion of development is much more effective than the national or supra-national one (bottom-up perspective). Regions are a better environment for integrating a variety of particular interventions necessary for executing a development plan as they are closer to the citizens and to the particular characteristics of a certain area. This makes it easier to understand the challenges of the moment.

Thirdly, from the sustainable development perspective, regions are in the best position to co-ordinate and manage relevant activities on a horizontal level – with similar structures in other regions and even across borders.

In this context, regionalisation has become the most important instrument in Europe for responding to development challenges. In parallel with political integration in Europe and the decentralisation of development trends, decision-making processes are shifting towards the regional and local levels in order to bring the instruments of regulation closer to the people and to the environment where events occur. The regional level is therefore important for democratic life in each country, where citizens can exercise their responsibility in organising their socio-political environment. The regional level must be given enough power to perform the tasks entrusted to it. However, regionalisation in the SEE area, as mentioned above, is still frequently seen as a threat to territorial integrity and not as an essential precondition for successful development. EU experiences in this field show clearly what type of territorial and administrative organisation is capable of meeting the requirements of territorial effectiveness and flexibility imposed by current development trends.

However, by itself, exposure to positive EU experiences is not sufficient. It is also necessary to ensure efficient implementation of the existing goals of the EU policy of “stabilisation and association” and to work at improving it. By way of an illustration, let us take a look at the CARDS (Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation) programmes. The CARDS Regional Strategy Paper identifies four main areas of support for regional co-operation: integrated border management, institutional capacity building, and support for democratic stabilisation, support to help plan infrastructure capacities and link them to European networks. The CARDS programme thus bases its action plan on the assumption that a functioning and effective regional system already exists. This, to our mind, can be seen as the main shortcoming of official EU programmes designed for the SEE region. The SEE region needs first of all grass-roots action to carry through necessary territorial reforms and further develop institutional capabilities and responsive leadership at the regional level. With its programmes for South-East Europe, the EU can provide essential support for the processes of territorial and administrative reorganisation of the region. In its documents, the EU places strong emphasis on the promotion of regional co-operation, which can play a crucial role in ensuring national, as well as regional, stability and growth. It stresses that such co-operation serves the interests of all the countries concerned.

The promotion of inter-regional and transborder co-operation should also be one of the fundamental requirements and goals of European policy. Cross-border co-operation certainly represents an important tool for stabilisation and development of the SEE region. Co-operation across borders strengthens the feeling of connectedness and interdependence between the people living on either side. For this reason it rapidly appeared on the agenda of the international community as one of the priority objectives for the region.

With this in mind, an important and progressive initiative contained in Recommendation 112 (2002) on the Forums of Cities and Regions of South-eastern Europe should be mentioned. In this text, the Congress recommended to the Committee of Ministers, on the basis of the Istanbul and Novi Sad Declarations, unanimously adopted on 3 November 2001 and 20 April 2002 respectively, that it instruct the Committee of Experts on Transfrontier Co-operation (LR-CT) to take part in forthcoming Congress work on a multilateral agreement between governments of South-eastern European countries

providing a legal framework for transfrontier co-operation between local and regional authorities on the basis of examples existing elsewhere in Europe.
The Chisinau Political Declaration on Transfrontier and Interterritorial Co-operation between States in South-Eastern Europe adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in November 2003 was also the result of the work carried out on the basis of this Recommendation.
The Chisinau Declaration confirms “the interest of a number of states of South-Eastern Europe and neighbouring states in the development of the legal framework of their cross-border co-operation, with a view to drawing up and concluding such interstate agreements as appropriate”. It is also stressed that the Council of Europe could constitute the framework for facilitating the conclusion of these agreements.

On the other hand, it is important to support and to encourage “the intention of the states concerned to undertake international commitments and national policies on transfrontier and interterritorial co-operation in a way consistent with the legal instruments of the Council of Europe and the commitments already entered into, as well as in line with other international agreements and the policy in relations with the European Union”.

Many programmes have been launched to promote transborder co-operation in South-East Europe and, as a result, many cross-border co-operation initiatives have been set up in the last few years. They include a number of attempts to create forms of structured cross-border co-operation, the so-called Euroregions. It should be noted, however, that most of these projects are rather weak, powerless and lacking in any sustained and substantial effects on life in the border areas concerned.

The reasons for ineffective transborder co-operation in SEE are once again varied and complex. In general they can be defined as internal and external.

Among the internal reasons, we could mention the misgivings of central governments with regard to transborder co-operation, the inadequacy of the powers devolved to the regional (local) level, inadequate and inefficient structures of regional (local) self-government, the non-existence of regional (local) structures capable of promoting and conducting transborder co-operation activities etc. The external factors which represent obstacles to more effective transborder co-operation have to be seen through the prism of the specific circumstances prevailing in South-East Europe in the past, which created deep divisions between the countries in the region. The scars caused by the harsh regimes of the past and especially by the violent break-up of former Yugoslavia can only be overcome in a gradual process of building mutual trust and confidence. The results of past developments are still present today and very strong borders and strict border-control regimes exist in South-East Europe. The understanding of the function of the border in South-East Europe today is still rather different from the modern notion of the border in the western European context, where it is considered as a bridge between the peoples.

However, if we want the SEE region to change its perception of the border in such a way that it becomes permeable to co-operation and the free movement of people, goods and ideas, the EU must do its utmost to ensure that the new continental borders (with Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro and also “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) and maritime borders (with Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro) imposed by the Schengen Agreement do not become strict and impermeable demarcation lines.

Encouragement should be given to associations and networks of regional (and local) representatives of the SEE countries, with the support of international organisations and, in the first instance, the Council of Europe and its Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, in order to foster co-operation between

them and the exchange of experiences. This could contribute to the dissemination and implementation of the concept of regionalisation as it exists elsewhere in Europe.

European policy, and especially Council of Europe and Congress activities, should continue to promote and support the involvement of civil society organisations and institutions in the decentralisation and regionalisation processes and especially in the building of open and democratic societies and institutional structures, which will provide citizens with opportunities to take part in the making of decisions directly affecting them and with instruments and procedures for public scrutiny of the implementation of public policies at all levels.

Efforts to provide training in the functioning of democratic mechanisms and politics should be stepped up. The Congress, for its part, took a step in this direction some years ago with the setting up of the Local Democracy Agencies as European co-operation structures designed to contribute to the development of democratic civil society in different SEE countries. The Congress also directly supports the activities of ENTO (European Network of Training Organisations for local and regional authorities). Moreover, there are a number of initiatives at intergovernmental level in the Council of Europe designed to assist States in setting up political, administrative and civic training programmes for national civil servants.

The main aim of all these efforts is to stabilise democracy in the South-East European countries, which represent an important part of our common European home and our social, cultural and historical heritage.