Rapporteur: Mr Stefan SOFIANSKI (Bulgaria)

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

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM¹

Provisional version
This document will be finally approved by the Ad Hoc Working Group of Local and Regional Representatives of South-East Europe on 19 May 2003

1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared by the ad hoc Working Group of local and regional representatives of South-East Europe at its meeting on the 21 March and 19 May 2003.

The Group’s mandate was adopted by the Bureau on 2 July 2002 following Recommendation 112 and Resolution 135 of 6 June 2002on the basis of the Conclusions of the Forums of Cities and Regions of South-East Europe (SEE) (Istanbul – November 2001 and Novi-Sad – March 2002). This group is composed of one representative of each SEE country (and also member of the Standing Committee) (cf. mandate and list – Appendix III). The development of the Network is one of the principal activities of the Group.

The current report has been prepared on the basis of:
- information from the Secretariat of the Congress
- results of the survey carried out by the FEDRE to whom your Rapporteur extends his most profound thanks.

2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

The Regional Table meeting of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, held in Thessaloniki in December 2002, has reiterated the importance of the local democracy and cross border cooperation as core objectives for 2003 and beyond.

Special Coordinator Ehrhard Busek has stated in his conclusions that “systematic co-operation of local actors (governmental, civic, and business), including across national borders must provide the underpinning to regional co-operation in SEE, with a view to enhance economic convergence, social cohesion and reconciliation, as well as local democracy and stability”.

In the last three years all the countries of South East Europe (SEE) have succeeded, with the technical and financial assistance of bilateral and multilateral donors, mainly in the framework of the activities of the Stability Pact, to create an Association of Local Authorities (ALA) gathering together, on a voluntary basis, a large number of municipalities. These Associations have started and will continue to play a significant role in the development of democratic life in their countries.

In this new political context, the Associations of Local Authorities have at least two fundamental roles to play. Firstly, they should provide services for their members (municipalities) with a view to developing their competences and capacities (i.e. in administrative, legal, fiscal and management questions and social and economic development). Secondly, they should develop an efficient co-operation (which should in the medium-term become a partnership) with central government by representing and defending the interests of their members.

At its 2001 Plenary Session, the CLRAE, on the basis of the results of the Forum of the Cities and Regions of SEE (Skopje, November 2000), adopted Resolution 111 (2001), which stresses the importance of the Associations of Local Authorities for the development of local democracy in South East Europe. This Resolution also reiterated the necessity of working towards reinforcing the Associations of Local Authorities and developing a Network of Associations NALAs-SEE intended eventually to become a Union of these Associations.
Since then, the Council of Europe has worked on the creation of this network through a voluntary contribution given by the Swiss government (SDC) in the framework of the Stability Pact.

This action included the organisation of a series of 4 regional seminars for all the Associations of Local Authorities of the region held in 2001.The first one took place in Tivat (Montenegro) in May, a second one in Tirana (Albania) in June, a third in Sofia (Bulgaria) in September and a final one was held in Dubrovnik (Croatia) in October.

The Swiss government (SDC) has continued to support technically and financially throughout 2002 the activities of the Network. A series of 4 Workshops were held, one in Budapest (March) on the preparation of projects for the donors, one in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina- September) on service provision, one in Sinaia (Romania-September) on the internal organisation/management problems of the Associations of Local Authorities, and one on the problems of cross border co-operation in Geneva in November.

The Central Union of Greek Cities and Municipalities (KEDKE) also supported the Network in 2002, inter alia, organising a meeting in Thessaloniki (early March) on the problems of exchange of information and the development of a website.

Last December, the CLRAE organised in Strasbourg the Inaugural Conference of the Network NALAs. Based on the results of the meeting, it was considered by all partners that in 2003, the network should be consolidated in order to develop co-operation, to exchange experiences and best practices and to work together to prepare joint activities to be submitted to different donors for funding.

It may be useful, at a later stage, for the CLRAE to assist the Associations of Local Authorities in the creation of a more formal structure, a Union between the Associations of Local Authorities of the South East Europe.

3. WHY A NETWORK?

The CLRAE considers it essential to contribute, in the spirit of the Stability Pact for South East Europe, to the reinforcement of the different Associations of Local Authorities of the region. The Associations have reached a quite different level of development and the degree of decentralisation of each country also varies greatly.

The CLRAE therefore considers that a Network between them will improve the exchange of experiences and will also contribute to the reinforcement of the position of each Association in its respective internal political scene. These questions were expressed in the previous meetings as the most urgent needs:

Overall Objectives:

· To reinforce the genuine decentralisation and democratisation in the region, in the spirit of the European Charter of Local Self-Government;
· To strengthen the importance of the National Associations of Local Authorities in these processes, as partners of the Central Governments and defenders of the rights and duties of the Local Authorities;

Specific objectives

· To exchange information / best practices / legislation / experiences between the Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe;
· To strengthen the individual position, role and capacity of every Association in its country;
· To organise workshops / trainings / joint projects to be submitted to donors for funding;
· To establish twinnings and technical partnerships between the members of the Network and other networks or organisations.

4. BETWEEN WHOM?

The majority of the countries of South East Europe have just one ALA. There are some cases like Bosnia and Herzegovina where each entity has its own Association or like Romania where very recently the 4 Romanian Associations merged into one “umbrella association” the Romanian Federation of Local Authorities, just to have one voice vis a vis the central government.
Therefore the members of the Network are the following Associations of Local Authorities:

ALBANIA Albanian Association of Municipalities
BOSNIA AND Association of Municipalities and cities of the Federation of
HERZEGOVINA of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Association of Municipalities and cities of Republika SRSPKA

BULGARIA National Association of Municipalities of Bulgaria
CROATIA Association of Towns and Municipalities of the Republic of Croatia
SERBIA AND
MONTENEGRO Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities of Yugoslavia
Montenegro Association of Municipalities of Montenegro
Kosovo Association of Municipalities of Kosovo
GREECE Central Union of Greek Cities and Municipalities
MOLDOVA Association of Mayors and Local Communities of the Republic of Moldova

Federation of Local and Regional Authorities

ROMANIA Romanian Federation of Local Authorities
SLOVENIA Association of Municipalities of Slovenia

Association of Municipalities and towns of Slovenia

FYROM Association of the Units of Local Self Government of the Republic of Macedonia
TURKEY Turkish Municipal Association
In the future, it would be desirable to invite also to take part in the activities of the Network, existing Associations of Regions in South-East Europe (in accordance with the Mandate of the ad hoc Working group – Appendix III, point 6).

5. HOW IS THE NETWORK MANAGED?

The Network is managed by a “project manager” who, in co-operation with the CLRAE and the different Associations members of the Network, will supervise the organisation of the activities.

In order to maximise the results and to reduce costs the Network is hosted in the premises of an ALA of the region. In this way, the Network will profit from the experience, premises, staff, capacity, and equipment of the hosting Association, which was chosen from the ones with the following characteristics:

· Long experience;
· Good relation with the National government / well recognised role / well established relationships at international and regional level;
· Effective political and managerial leadership;

· Competent staff with good command of foreign languages, in particular English.
For 2002, the Secretariat was granted by the National Association of the Municipalities of the Republic of Bulgaria (NARMB) and Monika Romenska, Deputy Executive Director of NAMRB” was appointed as “project manager”.

In the meeting held in Strasbourg last December adopted the principle of the rotation of the “Secretariat” was adopted. For 2003, the Romanian Federation of Local Authorities will guarantee the Secretariat of the Network.

In order to guarantee an effective and constant contact between the different members of the Network, we have asked each ALA to appoint a “Liaison officer”, a person chosen among the staff of the Association with a good knowledge of foreign languages.

Liaison officers were appointed by each ALA as shown in the list overleaf:

6. WHICH ACTIVITIES?

The Secretariat of the Network, due to its set-up, is requested to implement a large variety of activities and to respond to a wide range of requests coming from the different members. From the discussions held in the different meetings/workshops organised in the last 2 years it has emerged that a certain number of activities could be considered as priorities for the first years of the Network, namely:

1. Exchange / dissemination of information

2. Preparation of joint projects for multi/bilateral funding

3. Joint workshops / Conferences / Training seminars for the staff of the Associations of Local Authorities

4. Co-operation / Partnership / Cross border co-operation

5. International lobbying / Networking with the other existing networks or institutions

6.1. EXCHANGE / DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION

HOW?

· Creation of a website www.nalas-see.org with a link to the different national websites
· Newsletter in English (summaries to be translated in the different languages by the liaison officers)
· Creation of an email network/ distribution lists for general/specific documents
· Preparation of background documents on specific topics
· Organisation of specific events (from annual to specific meetings)

ON WHAT?

· Legislation/ Lobbying techniques for the adoption of national legislation
· Technical questions (services provision)
· Financial : fiscal questions
· Administrative questions
· Donors programmes

6.2. PREPARATION OF JOINT PROJECTS FOR INTERNATIONLA FUNDING (through preliminary training of staff)

· Council of Europe
· EU CARDS or other programmes
· USAID
· Open Society Institute (OSI) / Local Government Initiative (LGI)
· UNDP
· Other national or international donors

6.3. ORGANISATION OF JOINT WORKSHOPS/ CONFERENCES/ TRAINING SEMINARS

· Training seminars for the staff of the Associations of Local Authorities
· Annual conference of the Network
· Specialised workshops linked to the work of each Committee
· Exchange of experts / study visits
· Fairs for twinning/partnerships
· Meetings of the Presidents/ Executive Directors/Staff of the different Associations

6.4. CO-OPERATION/PARTNERSHIP / CROSS BORDER CO-OPERATION

· Creation of twinning and technical Partnerships
· Creation of EUROREGIONS
· Lobbying for the ratification of the Madrid Convention and of a multilateral agreement between the South Eastern European countries;
· Lobbying for the adoption of domestic legislation more favourable to the development of cross border co-operation

6.5. INTERNATIONAL – NATIONAL LOBBYING

· Relations with CLRAE/ OSI / World Bank / EU Committee of Regions
· Relations with IULA/ CEMR
· Relations with bilateral/multilateral donors
· Strengthening of roles and relations at national level
· Adoption of legislation in favour of the Associations of Local Authorities

7. PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES FOR 2003/2004

The activities of the Network of 2004 will start with a series of two Workshops organised with the financial and technical assistance of the Local Government Initiative of the Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation. The first one is foreseen in Ohrid (FYROM) on 11/12 April and will focus on how a consensus can be reached within an ALA on a specific subject. The second one will be organised in Belgrade in July and will focus on the improvement of public relations skills of the staff and board members of each ALA.

The Swiss Government has agreed to support the activities of the Network for 2003/2004, in particular the organisation of a series of 4 Seminars. The first one will take in place in Montenegro in June and will present the different programmes available for the development of Associations of Local Authorities by the different bi and multilateral donors active in the region of South East Europe. A second one will be organised in Albania in September and will focus on the how the Associations of Local Authorities should improve their capacity to assist their members in the preparation of budgets. A third one will be organised in Moldova in November ad will be devoted on how to prepare projects to be presented to donors. In 2004 a fourth meeting will be organised in Slovenia on how the Association could improve their service provision on environmental problems.

A more detailed Programme of the Network activities for 2003-2004 can be found below:

8. CHARACTERISTIC EXAMINATION OF THE ASSOCIATIONS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES OF SOUTH-EAST EUROPE. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY FEDRE IN 2002-2003²

8.1 Brief historical overview

The network linking the national associations of local and regional authorities of South-East Europe held its first meeting in Istanbul at the beginning of November 2001, then subsequently in Strasbourg on 13-14 December 2001. These meetings took place in the wake of several thematic workshops held throughout 2001 by the Council of Europe, to which the associations had been invited.

It had been decided at the time that each association would appoint one of its members as Liaison Officer, its official representative with the Network; it was also resolved that the secretariat of the network was to be the National Association of the Municipalities of Bulgaria. During a meeting of the Liaison Officers held on 25-26 January in Sofia, the programme of work of the network was adopted. This included the creation of an Internet site, as well as a series of thematic workshops. The programme of work was financed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC), and could avail itself of the logistical support of the Congress. The website of the network, www.nalas-see.org, has been on-line since the Spring of 2002. It aims at illustrating the activities of the network and provides links to the websites of its member associations.

The main objective of the network is to further decentralization in Southern-Eastern Europe, in particular:

· By exchanging information, best practice, legislation ;
· By strengthening the individual position of each association in the country;
· By organising joint projects to be submitted to donors for funding;
· By establishing twinnings and technical partnerships.

8.2 FEDRE’s approach

The Foundation takes part in the activities and the meetings of the network, the potential of which it has been aware of, from the start. This report was drafted in the summer of 2002, when the network encountered a setback, due to the delaying of funds, for technical reasons, which interrupted its activities from the end of March through mid-September. The relative weakness of the network then became apparent. Till then, it had been essentially based on personal contacts between the 12 Liaison Officers representing the 12 member associations stemming from the 12 States parties to the Stability Pact for South-East Europe.

What was the impact of the network and its activities on its various member associations independently from the Liaison Officers ? Which problems did it have to face up to (financing, relations with the municipalities, the national government and the Parliament, international contacts, pertinence for the local authorities, etc.) in such countries in transition, under constraining economic conditions, where decentralization and local autonomy are often still being put into place.

In order to reply to these questions in a meaningful manner, it was decided to carry out an in-depth survey of the national associations, with a view to better ascertaining their needs and expectations vis-à-vis the network, to understand how best to structure it, and what types of activities it should specialise in.

8.3 The questionnaire and its methodology (see Appendix II and III)

The first point brought to the attention of the participants of the survey was that the survey was not meant to evaluate their associations, but to better understand their problems and needs, on the one hand; on the other, the survey was also geared at identifying how best the network could best help improve decentralization in each country.

The questionnaire contained three parts.
Part 1 focused on the internal situation of the associations (permanent staff, office facilities and equipment, eventual website, budget and financial resources).
Part 2 aimed at acquiring a better understanding of the relations entertained with other such associations, nationally and internationally, and the kind of external input, which help stimulate these relations.
Part 3 focused on the network itself: how was it perceived? What sort of expectations did it raise? Which kind of problems could it be expected to help solve? What sort of activities should it carry out? How best could it further the international contacts of the associations?

8.4 The associations : a wide array of situations – and some problems³

The network depends obviously on the capacity for action of the associations which form its membership. It is obvious that one of the major reasons for the creation of such a network is the similarity of some problems affecting the local and regional authorities in the various countries of Southern-Eastern Europe. However, there exists a variety of situations, at times very diverse; some difficulties can or might hamper the network. Some more factual information, which should not be underestimated, will be mentioned later in the course of this report without however disclosing the identity of the association it pertains to, since this is not the purpose of the endeavour.

Financially, all the associations depend to a great extent on international programmes (World Bank, European Union, VNG, USAID, Soros Foundation, etc.), much more than their Western European counterparts. In the best cases, membership fees account for 40-50 per cent of the budget⁴, whereas in Western Europe, similar associations are able to sustain themselves largely on membership fees and the paid services they offer. Some associations are faced with the problem of arrears due by their member municipalities. Thus, in February 2003, one association postponed paying some of its bills to be able to pay the salaries of its small staff (2 people). Frequently, the municipalities themselves are faced with big financial problems and furthermore are not really aware of what the association does, or what it could do for them⁵.

The size of the administrative staff varies widely from 1 to 30 persons. At times, they are staffed by volunteers. Three-fourths of the associations have 2-4 staff members, which is rather small.

As regards office accommodations, the largest office covers 400 sq metres (actually, 800 sq.m, of which half is rented). One association is located within the Parliament, an imposing building. At the other end of the scale, other associations have taken up their quarters in windowless basements or hotel room or in a low-income housing unit in the urban outskirts. Only one association owns its office, all of the others rent either from private parties or from public sector landlords. In one case, the rent of the association is paid by the municipality where it is located. Four associations out of 12 occupy offices of more than 100 sq. m.

With regard to IT equipment, the situation is more positive generally speaking, mainly because of international assistance. The same is true of websites⁶, since only one association out of 12 does not yet have its own site. The situation of other office equipment can still offer a few small surprises: two of the associations do not have their own photocopy machines, and one of the latter is without a fax.

The internal problems of some of the associations affect the quality of the services they offer to their member municipalities. This can in turn affect the perception central governments may have of them, and thus lower the degree of influence of the associations, as they begin to be perceived as being less weak.

Likewise, the consequences on the network and its effectiveness are also not to be underestimated. Because of their rather small size (we must recall that the majority of associations have less than 5 staff members), and of their internal difficulties, some associations can only give a limited contribution to the network. It would be unrealistic to underestimate it. Conversely, even if there can be no doubt that the network could ideally contribute to strengthening its member associations - one of its main objectives - the latter must recognize that the network cannot by itself solve most of their problems and that there is a limit to what can be expected.

International relations from the standpoint of the associations to bridge the gap between the international and the national level is not easy. The great majority of the associations are aware of the preponderance of national government in the field of international relations, which is its prerogative. Therefore, the matter depends on the relations each association has with its own central government. The situation varies to a great extent from one country to another; but the general reproach which is addressed to governments of South-East Europe is that they are not fully aware of the importance of the local and regional dimension, which is on the contrary generally well perceived in Western Europe, and even more so within the European Union. This is why the associations would like to be more systematically consulted regarding international matters, which concern their constituents.

Several of the associations surveyed have mentioned an improvement in their relations with their central governments over the past two or three years, even if the situation is still not to be considered satisfactory. Thus, a few associations are negotiating with their central authorities to be regularly informed during meetings with the ministers. Other associations are even seeking to sign conventions with their central governments regulating their relations with them ; others already have a consultative status with the government and the Parliament (however, this does not mean that they are always consulted well enough in advance to have any bearing).

In addition to the issue of international relations and relations with the central government, the degree of understanding by governments of the role and work of the associations also has a bearing on its perception of the usefulness of the associations. In South-East Europe, where « Western style » local autonomy is a recent concept, not always understood by the central authorities, and where the associations are often new and/or weak in number and resources, the questionnaire shows that associations have a hard time making the government, if not at times the municipalities themselves, understand the nature of their work and the added value generated for the whole country. This is an important point, because if the role of these associations is not clearly understood by the government and the parliament, there is not much of a chance that the role of the network will be either. Most associations are aware of this, and would like to dispose of the financial means to conduct information campaigns, awareness campaigns and PR campaigns on their work. Likewise, they would like the network to impart competencies in the fields of lobbying as it is engaged in by Western local and regional entities.

8.5 International relations from the standpoint of the associations

To bridge the gap between the international and the national level is not easy. The great majority of the associations are aware of the preponderance of national government in the field of international relations, which is its prerogative. Therefore, the matter depends on the relations each association has with its own central government. The situation varies to a great extent from one country to another; but the general reproach which is addressed to governments of South-East Europe is that they are not fully aware of the importance of the local and regional dimension, which is on the contrary generally well perceived in Western Europe, and even more so within the European Union. This is why the associations would like to be more systematically consulted regarding international matters, which concern their constituents.

Several of the associations surveyed have mentioned an improvement in their relations with their central governments over the past two or three years, even if the situation is still not to be considered satisfactory. Thus, a few associations are negotiating with their central authorities to be regularly informed during meetings with the ministers. Other associations are even seeking to sign conventions with their central governments regulating their relations with them; others already have a consultative status with the government and the Parliament (however, this does not mean that they are always consulted well enough in advance to have any bearing).

In addition to the issue of international relations and relations with the central government, the degree of understanding by governments of the role and work of the associations also has a bearing on its perception of the usefulness of the associations. In South-East Europe, where « Western style » local autonomy is a recent concept, not always understood by the central authorities, and where the associations are often new and/or weak in number and resources, the questionnaire shows that associations have a hard time making the government, if not at times the municipalities themselves, understand the nature of their work and the added value generated for the whole country. This is an important point, because if the role of these associations is not clearly understood by the government and the parliament, there is not much of a chance that the role of the network will be either. Most associations are aware of this, and would like to dispose of the financial means to conduct information campaigns, awareness campaigns and PR campaigns on their work. Likewise, they would like the network to impart competencies in the fields of lobbying as it is engaged in by Western local and regional entities.

8.6 How the associations perceive the network ?

The Liaison Officers having participated in the activities leading to the creation of the network were aware of its existence since the beginning ; the rest of the administrative staff of the associations was informed of its existence either immediately after the Istanbul meeting of 1 November 2001, or between that date and the Jahorina workshop in mid-September 2002. As far as the mayors are concerned, all have not been informed of the network’s existence ; those who are aware of it have been informed by the association to which they belong.

The perception of the network is usually positive and great hopes seem to be placed in it. There is trust in the immediate term, though there is also awareness that the endeavour is just beginning. Expectations are more forward-looking than based on current achievements. At the same time, many have expressed a desire for it to be strengthened by becoming more professional and by the provision of more concrete services to the associations, rather than the organization of restricted workshops for a few members, among which its Liaison Officers, on a regular basis⁷.

8.7 Towards a better-structured, professionalised network

The prevailing opinion of the interviewees was that the potential of the network is limited by its informal nature. This leads to a lack of visibility, which is inherently problematic, since one of its main functions, as the interviewees pointed out, is to represent its member associations at the international level. Along the same line of thought, some expressed the concern that the tasks and strategic objectives of the network should be clarified in priority, so that more reflexion could be devoted to the structure, which could best perform these tasks and objectives.

Today, the secretariat is ensured by a member association, appointed on a rotational basis, which has among other been heavily criticized as to whether it should be annual ; this time frame has been considered too short to allow for any real efficiency. Some feel that the secretariat should be permanent, and that the Chair of the network should be rotating. Others propose the constitution of an independent full-time secretariat working solely for the network under the authority of a collegiate body, on which each association would be represented by its chairman or his/her representative. This professionalisation of the network would require of course an operational budget to cover the staff and material, which would be greater than the current one.

Along the same line of thought, a large percentage of interviewees felt that the network should dispose of the expertise of international specialists in the fields of local autonomy and fund-raising. The competence of these experts could be one of the services offered to network members. Even more ambitiously, others felt that one of the tasks of the network could be to create its own Training Centre, specialized in South-East Europe.

As regards improved relations between the network and the associations, others yet set forth the idea that any network decision should be mandatory for the associations, on the condition of course that each association would have its say at the decision-making body of the network. Also, in such case, each association could contribute materially to the operation of the network, either through financial contributions, or in-kind contributions, according to rules to be defined. Of course, it is clear that such contributions would not suffice for the future development of the activities of the network, and that external financial contributions would in any case be needed.

8.8 The international role of the network must be fine-tuned and further developed

Today, each association keeps its own international contacts, for many an important source of financing (VNG, USAID, Soros Foundation, etc.).Yet, most of the interviewees would like the network to play an enhanced role in this regard, with a better-defined focus, to avoid any competition between associations. Furthermore, the idea was also expressed that in certain types of international relations, the associations would fortify their image and credibility if they were to present themselves under the unifying banner of the network.

Which possibilities were mentioned? It was mainly contacts with the major international or European organizations, in particular the Council of Europe and the European Union. The former is not surprising, since it is within the framework of the CLRAE, that the network project of the associations of South-East Europe was developed and implemented, with the logistical support of the Congress. Furthermore, it would be a good idea to take into consideration the wish that was expressed that the network represent its member associations at the European Union and its Committee of the Regions, because it is a role which the network has not performed till now. The guiding principle is, again, that in order to deal with such an important institution as the European Union, it is best to do so jointly to enhance the chance of a successful outcome.

The role of the network in dealing with the Union would not be limited to mere contacts concerning participation in Community programmes. It would ultimately aim at the active participation of the network in the implementation of the “acquis communautaire” at the local level in all of the countries of South-East Europe – which is no doubt a task of fundamental importance, which would in itself justify the existence of the network.

The interviewees have likewise found it desirable that the network represent its member associations at some associations of local and regional authorities, of any level, European such as the CMRE or the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) ; or worldwide, such as the IULA, the Federation of United Cities, or in the future, United Cities and Local Government. A similar wish is expressed with regard to the United Nations, in particular its Economic Commission for Europe, as well as some of its programmes, mainly in the area of the environment and development (UNEP, UNDP).

Another theme that emerged was representation with national Western associations of local authorities. Here opinions diverged. Some thought that the network is the ideal structure for this type of contacts, whereas others felt that each association should entertain its own contacts with counterpart associations and other Western municipalities and that it was not necessary to entrust the task to the network. However, all agreed to say that the network ensure the exchange of « best practices »in municipal and local management, with the Western associations and municipalities. Needless to say, the latter task should be coupled with that played by the network to mainstream EU principles in the countries of South-East Europe.

8.9 Information and communication

One of the basic functions of a network is to ensure the flow of information amongst its members. This circulation of information should concern the legislative framework pertaining to local government and the projects of reform which are in progress, the programmes of the international and European organizations which are relevant to its members (European Union and the Council of Europe, notably), as well as the main sources of financing, the activity of the various member associations, and their contacts with their national governments (Government and Parliament). The knowledge base of the network, to date mainly the workshops, must be made available, together with the previously mentioned exchange of experiences, best practices and pitfalls to be avoided.

Some even feel that good information stemming from the network can significantly reinforce the associations themselves (one of its major goals), by making available to them a broader range of experiences and information than they would have disposed of individually. This would save time and improve the efficiency of each association. One of the interviewees summarized this in this manner: « I should not have to find out all by myself, if someone else already knows the answer. » Another benefit of the network, which appeared in several replies was: « One should avoid overlaps in the use of international assistance to local authorities in Southern-Eastern Europe, by enhancing the flow of information. This is important, because the existence of the Stability Pact does not guarantee that this will occur automatically. »

Information also means getting to know one another. Several replies thus denoted that the network should strive for a better acquaintance of its member associations, thanks to its website, among other. At least once a month, each association should inform the others of its activities. Some interviewees even proposed that the network eventually organize visits to each of the associations; several replies expressed their regret that the past workshops did not allow them to visit their host associations more often. Much interest was expressed for the legislative information concerning local government and reforms taking place in the various States, as well as in the basic principles of lobbying.

Here are thus the main trends which have been revealed by the responses to the questionnaire; however, these opinions also contain some criticism on the current operation of the network. In particular, there are requests for better circulation of the information stemming from the workshops (it has been done since the Sinaia workshop, held at the beginning of October 2002). There was a substantial amount of criticism of the website, which was considered not dynamic enough to play the vital role which it should have for the network.

8.10 The implementation of joint projects

Communication and the flow of information, especially experience-sharing, is considered of paramount importance; this is why a high number of replies mention the development of a concrete transborder project, to be carried out by the network. A concrete transborder region where it would be implemented still needs to be identified, something these replies do not mention.

However, they do contain various indications concerning its eventual field of activity: the environment, energy saving, water, waste management, communication with the citizen, joint participative drafting of legislation pertaining to local government, agriculture, with a view to its least damaging adaptation to the European Union, are but a few which have been mentioned. This task would engage the efforts of the secretariat, the network’s member associations and the groups of experts solicited by the network.

8.11 Conclusion: building on our past efforts

All the member associations of the network are aware of the fact that they are taking part in an exciting undertaking. Some have even expressed the opinion that their network membership has strengthened their credibility with their governments, and that they would be damaged if it were to be abolished.

Mutual relations have been established; work methods have been put into place - though certainly they still require to be further developed and to become more professional. These are valuable assets, but the future remains uncertain. Political support is necessary at this point - the “ad hoc” Working Group of the Local and Regional Authorities in Southern-Eastern Europe would be the best party to take any required initiative, on the basis of the information submitted in this report.

General Conclusion

On the basis of the information of this report, your Rapporteur would like to emphasise that the organisation of the Network depends on the commitment of the national coordinators (they themselves supported by the national Associations) and the continued support of several donors, including the Swiss government.

The main points of this report are to be reflected in the Resolution.

APPENDIX I – QUESTIONNAIRE

GENERAL OVERVIEW of the Associations of Local and Regional Authorities of South- East Europe, with feed-back on their Network

realised by FEDRE

Target-people

1. Administrative staff of the Associations
2. Elected members of the Associations (Board, Executive Council, General Assembly…)

Objective of the inquiry

This inquiry does not have the objective neither to evaluate, nor to judge, the way the Associations are functioning. We do not pursue either an academic purpose consisting of a sophisticated compiling of data and statistics leading to the mere production of a book which will not be read outside of the academic spheres.
On the contrary, this inquiry is action-oriented. It is strictly designed to have a better knowledge of the problems and needs which arise at the level of each Association, in order to take it more accurately into account in the launching of future activities by the Network itself.

Feed-back on the Network

This work will lead to the redaction of a report (ca. 20 pages) and to some proposals for a set of recommendations which will be submitted, by Spring 2003, to the NALAs Network and, ultimately, to the “ad hoc” South-East Group of elected representatives members of the CLRAE in Strasbourg.

1.1. Internal structure of your Association (organisational issues)
(Set of questions aiming to get a better understanding of the practical situation of the Association, for instance:)

-1.1.1.administrative staff (number, tasks, eventual presence of experts)
-1.1.2.budget (sources of financing, allocation of the funds…)
-1.1.3.premises (surface, type of tenure: owned, rented, temporarily lend…),
-1.1.4.technical equipment (phones, fax, PCs…), problems...
-1.1.5.management of the web site or plans to have one in future (who pays it...)
-1.1.6. other points

1.2. External relations of the Association (relational issues)

· Relations with the central State (Government and Parliament), Associations...

- 1.2.1.How do you see these relations nowadays?
- 1.2.2.How to eventually improve them?
- 1.2.3.Would an external impulse be useful in that respect and from what kind should it be?

· 1.2.4.Relations with other Associations representing other types of Local Authorities in the country (when there are several Associations, Unions or Foundations of/for Local Authorities, in the same country)

1.3. The Network and the Association

· Vision, or non-vision, of the Network:

- 1.3.1.How were you informed of the existence of the Network?
- 1.3.2.What is your perception of the Network?

· What are your expectations towards the Network, for instance:

- 1.3.3.Help you to solve some of your problems, and which ones
- 1.3.4.Help to develop the international relations, and in which way
- 1.3.5.Type of activities that the Network should perform
- 1.3.6.Type of issues which could possibly be met efficiently by the Network

2. Written Information and Documentation

Every relevant document on the Association will be picked up, such as:

- Statutes
- Last Activity report
- Budget
- Publications: brochures, magazines, books…
- Decisions of the last General Assemblies

+Information on the current, or planned, projects conducted by the Association, especially those which involve foreign partnerships, be they in the framework of the Stability Pact or by-products of other bi- or multilateral arrangements.

APPENDIX II

LIST OF INTERVIEWED PERSONS
LISTE DES PERSONNES INTERVIEWÉES

ALBANIA
Albanian Association of Municipalities
Mr Fatos HODAJ, Executive Director, liaison officer
Mr Julian CANI, Administrator and financial manager
Mr Murat KAÇI, Mayor of Gjirokaster
Mr Mamani NACKI, Taxes department
Mrs Ana QIRKO, Assistant of the Executive Director

BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA

Association of Municipalities of the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Mr Sead MASLO, City Secretary of the Town of Mostar
Mr Mirsad ŠARIć, Town of Mostar, Councillor for infrastructure and economy
Mr Camil OSMANAGIĆ, Project international manager, liaison officer
Mr Anton ŠTITIĆ, Secretary general

Union of Municipalities of Republika Srpska
Mrs Dragana ALEKSIĆ, Project co-ordinator
Mr Brano JOVIČIĆ, Secretary General, liaison officer
Mrs Blagana POPOVIĆ, Project assistant

BULGARIA
National Association of Municipalities of the Republic of Bulgaria (NAMRB)
Mr Alexsandar ALEXIEV, Chief of the administrative and financial section
Mrs Kristina ANDREEVA, Expert for training
Mr Ivaylo BOZHINOV, Internet expert
Mrs Teodora DACHEVA, Chief of the section “services to the members”
Mrs Rositsa GEORGIEVA, Co-ordinator of the relations with the central Governement
Mr Emil MIHAILOV, Mayor of Belene
Mr Chavdar ROUSSEV, Expert in the international department
Mrs Anelia ROUSSEVA, Mayor
Mr Roussi ROUSSINOV, Mayor of Lom
Mrs Ginka TCHAVDAROVA, Executive Director

CROATIA
Association of Towns and Municipalities of Croatia
Mrs Irena BAKAL, Executive Director
Mrs Marija DEREN, Adviser

KOSOVO
Association of Municipalities of Kosovo
Mrs Merita KRASNIQI, Office manager

MACEDONIA (FYROM)
Association of Units of Local Self-Government (ZELS)
Mr Goran ANGELOV, President, Mayor of Vilnica
Mrs Nataša CVETKOVSKA, in charge of international activities
Mrs Olivera JOVANOVSKA, public relations co-ordinator
Mrs Tanja KALOVSKA, legal adviser
Mrs Dušica PERIŠIĆ, Executive Director, liaison officer

MOLDOVA
Association of Mayors and Local Communities of the Republic of Moldova
Mrs Diana HRIPLIVAIA, Project assistant
Mr Petr MALIK, Mayor of Anenii Noi
Mr Konstantin NUNU, Trainer
Mr Mihai PEREBINOS, President, liaison officer

MONTENEGRO
Union of Municipalities of Montenegro
Mrs Dovanka LALIČIĆ, Deputy Mayor of Tivat
Mr Stanko MARIĆ, General Secretary
Mrs Vera MILANIĆ, Mayor of Niksić
Mr Nikola SAMARDZIĆ, Mayor of Kotor
Mr Saša SČEKIĆ, Adviser for local self-government reforms
Mrs Vanja STAROVLAH, Adviser for international co-operation, liaison officer

ROMANIA
Federation of Local Authorities of Romania
Mr Alin ALECU, Executive Director
Mr Sorin BOTIRCA, Executive Director of the Association of Romanian Towns
Mr Vasile Silvia CIUPERCA, Vice-President, President of the Association of Romanian Towns
Mr Catalin GHERMAN, Programme co-ordinator in the Association of Romanian Municipalities
Mr Adrian MIROU, Programme co-ordinator
Mrs Narcisa MURARU, Executive Director of the Association of Romanian Towns

SERBIA-MONTENEGRO
Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities of Yugoslavia
Mrs Katarina ANĐELKOVIĆ, in charge of the internal administration
Mrs Ljubinka KALUĐEROVIĆ, Secretary of the Environment and Service Provision Committee
Mr Pera MARKOVIĆ, Expert
Mr Đorđe STANIČIĆ, Secretary General
Mrs Rajna TODOSIJEVIĆ, Secretary
Mrs Maja TRAJKOVIĆ, Project manager
Mrs Zorica VUKELIĆ, Deputy Secretary General, liaison officer
Mrs Branka ŽILKOVIĆ, Assistant for international relations, Internet expert

SLOVENIA
Association of Municipalities of Slovenia
Mr Marko JUVANČIČ, Secretary for international affairs, liaison officer
Mr Mitja SLANE, Secretary
Mr Anton KOKALJ, Secretary General a.i.
Mr Robert SMRDELJ, President, Mayor of Pivka
Mr Toni RIFELJ, Mayor of Gornji Grad

APPENDIX III

Strasbourg, 4 April 2003
CG/GTSEE (9) 1 rev 5

AD HOC WORKING GROUP OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SOUTH-EAST EUROPE

Terms of reference adopted by the Bureau of the CLRAE
on 5 July 2002

* * *

Membership as of 4 April 2003
(communicated by the Chairmen of the National Delegations concerned)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The working group is responsible for:

1. Considering follow-up to:

i. The three Forums of cities and regions of South-East Europe (Skopje, Istanbul, Novi Sad) and the proposals set out in the Declarations;
ii. The Congress debates at the eighth and ninth plenary sessions
(Recommendations 92 (2001) and 112 (2002), Resolutions 111 (2001) and 135 (2002));

2. Supervising activities organised by the Congress in the context of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe;

3. Representing the interests of local and regional authorities in South-East Europe within the Congress, but also in dealings with the Steering Committee for Local Democracy and Transfrontier Co-operation under the Stability Pact;

4. Considering means whereby Stability Pact donor countries and organisations might finance priority projects in the local democracy sector;

5. Taking part in the activities carried out in the context of the reinforced Szeged Process;

6. Contributing to the development of the Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe, making sure that associations of regions, in particular the Association of Albanian Regions, also take part;

7. Ensuring that the activities organised with national local authority associations in all the countries of Eouth-East Europe are continued in so far as the financial contributions to the Congress from the Stability Pact donors permit;

8. Considering the role that the Congress could play, in the spirit of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, in ensuring that the special problems encountered by local and regional authorities in South-East Europe are taken into account for the purpose of obtaining loans from the Council of Europe's Development Bank.

DURATION OF TERMS OF REFERENCE: 2003 - 2004

WORKING LANGUAGES: French, English, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian

NUMBER OF MEETINGS: 2 or 3 a year on the occasion of the Plenary Session, Spring Session and Autumn Institutional Session of the Congress

MEMBERS Full and alternate members of the Working Group should be full or alternates members of the Standing Committee of the CLRAE.

COMPOSITION :

ALBANIA Mr Artur KURTI Full member

Mrs Elidiana CANAJ Alternate
……… Alternate

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Mr Slavisa SUCUR Full member

……… Alternate
……… Alternate

BULGARIA Mr Stefan SOFIANSKI Full member

Mr Naiden ZELENOGORSKI Alternate
……… Alternate

CROATIA Mr Nikola OBULJEN Full member

Mr Miljenko DORIC Alternate
Mr Ratimir SANTIC Alternate

GREECE ……… Full member

……… Alternate
……… Alternate

MOLDOVA Mr Serafim URECHEAN Full member

Mr Anatol CHETRARU Alternate
Mrs Nina COSTIUC Alternate

ROMANIA ………. Full member

……… Alternate
Mr Caius PARPALA Alternate

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO Mr Djordje STANICIC Full member

……… Alternate
……… Alternate

« THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC Mr Goran ANGELOV Full member
OF MACEDONIA » Mr Slobodan KOVACEVSKI Alternate

Mr Murtezan ISMAILI Alternate

TURKEY Mr Yavuz MILDON⁸ Full member

Mrs Bahar CEBI Alternate
Mr Hilmi TOKUS Alternate

CLRAE RAPPORTEUR Mr Owen MASTERS*

OBSERVERS
Association of Municipalities of Kosovo
Association of Local Democracy Agencies (ALDAs)
Foundation for the Economy and Sustainable Development of the Regions of Europe (FEDRE)
European Network of Training Organisations for Local and Regional Authorities (ENTO)
Network of National Associations of Local Authorities (NALAs Network)
Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe
« Szeged » Process
Association of European Border Regions (AEBR)
Assembly of European Regions (AER)

¹ A final decision on adding this item to the agenda for the 10th plenary session will be taken at the Bureau's meeting on 28 April 2003.
² Document prepared by Mr. Saint-Ouen, Executive Secretary of FEDRE, and Mr. Veprek.
³ Our interviewer has gathered a great deal of documentation on the programmes and budgets of the associations. This information will be made available to the secretariat of the network. This report will only take into account the salient points which are essential for the main theme of our study, that is the network itself (and not the associations).
⁴ The same can be said for the central government, which in some cases does not seem to perceive the association’s role clearly, and hence its relevance.
⁵ The same is true of the national governments, which are often not aware of the role of the association nor of its potential usefulness.
⁶ However, when the financial support ends, the associations are often not able to continue to update the sites they have created with international assistance.
⁷ The fact that enough mayors had not been able to participate in the previously organized workshops has been criticised , with the wish that each delegation will include one elected member and a member of the staff (thus 50/50 participation).
⁸ Appointed by the CLRAE Bureau on 5 July 2002