Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission — European Neighbourhood Policy — Strategy paper
Date: 2005-04-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, local authority, regional authority

C 231/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission — Euro-
pean Neighbourhood Policy — Strategy paper

(2005/C 231/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
— European Neighbourhood Policy — Strategy Paper (COM (2004) 373 final);

Having regard to the Commission's decision on 13 May 2004 to consult it in accordance with the provi-
sions of the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision by its Bureau on 15 June 2004 to instruct the Commission for External Rela-
tions to draw up an outlook opinion on the matter;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council on the Commission proposals
for action plans under the European neighbourhood policy (ENP) (COM(2004) 795 final);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the European Com-
munity and its Member States within the Association Council established by the Euro-Mediterranean Agree-
ment establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one
part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a Recom-
mendation on the implementation of the EU-Jordan Action Plan (COM(2004) 796 final);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the European Com-
munity within the Joint Committee established by the Interim Association Agreement on trade and coop-
eration with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Palestinian
Authority Action Plan (COM(2004) 789 final);

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted by the European Com-
munity and its Member States within the Association Council established by the Euro-Mediterranean Agree-
ment establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one
part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on
the implementation of the EU-Tunisia Action Plan (COM(2004) 792 final);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the Communities
and its Member States within the Cooperation Council established by the Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and its Member States, of the
one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on the imple-
mentation of the EU-Ukraine Action Plan (COM(2004) 791 final);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the Communities
and their Member States within the Association Council established by the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,
and the State of Israel, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a Recommendation on the imple-
mentation of the EU-Israel Action Plan (COM(2004) 790 final);

Having regard to the proposal for a Council decision on the position to be adopted by the European
Communities and their Member States within the Cooperation Council established by the Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member
States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, with regard to the adoption of a
Recommendation on the implementation of the EU-Moldova Action Plan (COM(2004) 787 final);

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:
Building our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013
COM(2004) 101 final;

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/59

Having regard to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down
general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument COM(2004) 628
final;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission: Paving the way for a New Neighbourhood
Instrument COM(2003) 393 final;

Having regard to the Report of the European Parliament on Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New
Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours (COM(2003) 104 — 2003/2018(INI));

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament: Wider Europe — neighbourhood: a new framework for relations with our eastern and southern
neighbours (CdR 175/2003 fin) (1);

Having regard to its outlook opinion on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and local and regional autho-
rities: the need for coordination and a specific instrument for decentralised cooperation (CdR 327/2003
fin (2));

Having regard to its opinion on Local and regional government in Russia and the development of coopera-
tion between the EU and Russia (CdR 105/2004);

Having regard to its opinion on Northern Dimension — Second Action Plan 2004-2006 (CdR 102/2003
fin (3));

Having regard to its draft opinion on the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:
Building our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the Enlarged Union 2007-2013
(CdR 162/2004 rev. 3) (rapporteur: Cllr Sir Albert Bore, Birmingham City Council (UK, PES));

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 336/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 7 February 2005 by the Commission
for External Relations (rapporteur: Lord Hanningfield, Essex County Council (UK/EPP)).

1)

2)

3)

Whereas,
in the light of the European Neighbourhood Policy, it should now look to extend its
external relations activities, within the parameters of its resources and institutional mission, beyond
the current accession states to include, but not exclusively, those countries detailed in the ENP;

Whereas, its priority for external relations must remain with the local and regional authorities of the
existing applicant countries;

Whereas, it should also give high priority under the ENP to dialogue and cooperation with all the
states on the EU's northern, eastern and southern borders;

adopted the following opinion at its 59th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 April 2005 (session
of 14 April).

1. The Committee of the Region's views

1.1 General remarks on European Neighbourhood policy

acknowledges that with the recent enlargement of the
1.1.2
European Union and subsequent changes
to its external
borders, this policy is a timely and welcome step forward
designed to share the benefits of the EU's enlargement with
neighbouring countries in strengthening stability, security and
well-being for all concerned;

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.1.1
welcomes this important and necessary document by
the European Commission, providing as it does a real and
genuine opportunity to define and improve relations between
the European Union and its neighbouring countries;

(1) JO C 23 du 27.1.2004, p. 36
(2) OJ C 121 of 30.4.2004 p. 18-25
(3) OJ C 23 of 27.1.2004, p. 27

agrees that the European Neighbourhood Policy offers
1.1.3
a means to reinforce relations between the European union and
neighbouring countries and to prevent the emergence of new
dividing lines between them;

C 231/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

that

stresses

1.1.4
the European Neighbourhood Policy
whilst offering an improved relationship between the EU and
its neighbouring countries is distinct from the process of enlar-
gement itself and should be viewed in such a context;

1.1.5
stresses the importance that local and regional govern-
ment has to play in this process and is concerned at the
absence of any substantive mention and defined role for local
and regional government within the Policy;

1.1.6
agrees that the policy will encourage neighbourhood
countries to participate in various EU activities, through greater
political, security, economic and cultural cooperation;

considers that

1.1.7
the European Neighbourhood Policy
seeks to support efforts to achieve greater respect for improved
human rights, civil society and develop good governance in
these countries;

welcomes,

1.1.8
the recent political
in this connection,
developments in Ukraine and in Georgia. The European Neigh-
bourhood Policy must actively support this country's progress
towards greater democracy and a market economy;

level of management to be chosen, local and regional authori-
ties play a crucial and unique role in this context as they can
ensure lasting and properly orientated relations;

1.2.3
encouraging the democratisation process;

notes the effectiveness of the bottom-up approach in

1.2.4
adds that in practice local and regional authorities
serve as good democratic apprenticeships for citizens, and
hence are an important player in ensuring well-functioning
democracies;

1.2.5
highlights the importance of developing and consoli-
dating local government by means of cross-border cooperation
and of making greater use of exchanges and shared knowledge
with existing Euro-regions as a way of achieving the objectives
set out in the Action Plan for each country;

1.2.6
notes the difficulties experienced by the local and
regional authorities of those countries identified in the ENP in
taking the necessary measures to adapt their administrative
structures to European structures;

agrees that the European Neighbourhood Policy seeks
1.1.9
to improve trade relations and economic development between
the EU and neighbourhood countries;

1.2.7
wishes to share with those countries outlined in the
ENP the experienced gained by its members as a result of their
contacts with local and regional authorities in the candidate
countries during the enlargement process;

that

acknowledges
important

1.1.10
Policy is
between countries
combating terrorism,
crime such as drugs and human trafficking;

the European Neighbourhood
to promoting the closer cooperation
included in the ENP and the EU in
immigration and cross-border

illegal

believes that

1.2.8
most appropriate level
partner countries;

local and regional authorities are the
for decentralised cooperation with

1.2.9
regional government has most to offer these countries:

recalls the areas where the expertise of

local and

supports efforts,

1.1.11
in ENP countries with different
ethnic minorities, to find innovative solutions to promote co-
existence and respect for universally recognised fundamental
principles.

a. regional and spatial planning;

b. urban planning;

c. agriculture, fisheries and rural development;

1.2 Local and regional dimension of the European Neighbourhood

policy:

d. environment, resource management and civil protection;

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

e. the sub-regional dimension of transport and energy;

1.2.1
highlights that local and regional authorities in ENP
countries should, wherever possible, play a greater role in the
process of democratisation and devolution;

f. policies promoting SMEs;

g. policies promoting employment;

h. cultural and sporting initiatives;

1.2.2
underlines that according to one of the Union's main
principles — subsidiarity — which allows the most appropriate

i. policies for safeguarding and fostering heritage;

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/61

j. social proximity policies;

k. education and training;

l. health and social care;

m. managing immigration flows, reception and integration

policy;

n. housing;

o. security and safety measures;

p. public procurement;

1.2.10
recalls that there is scope for action by local and
regional authorities that complements and goes beyond the
traditional limits of cooperation at the level of central govern-
ments. Indeed, it is at this level that the ENP as proposed by
the Commission can be really effective;

points out that the decentralised cooperation prac-
1.2.11
tices developed in recent years have highlighted the responsi-
bility that local authorities bear in their role as a catalyst for
new cooperation processes.

1.3 Geographic coverage

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.3.1
notes that those countries included in the ENP are
diverse in their economic, social and political development and
furthermore do not start from the same point in regard to their
relations with the EU;

believes that strong regional and local

1.3.2
institutions
elected by and accountable to the people are necessary for truly
democratic societies and anticipates the entry into force in
2006 of federal legislation on the remit of Russian regional and
local authorities to be a step forward for potential cooperation
between devolved authorities in the EU and Russia, notably by
clarifying competencies with regard to cross-border coopera-
tion;

1.3.3
is concerned that no direct mention is made within
the ENP as to the ongoing problems in regard to Kaliningrad
although accepts that the issue is adequately addressed in other
documents and work of the Commission;

welcomes

1.3.4
the Southern
Caucasus — Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia — in the Euro-
pean Neighbourhood Policy;

the decision to include

further welcomes the commitment of

1.3.5
the EU to
‘support credible, concrete and sustained reform efforts, in par-
ticular in the above mentioned priority areas, by additional
means of assistance’ (1).

1.4 Action Plans

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

supports the idea of an all encompassing Action Plan
1.4.1
jointly agreed by partner countries and the EU as the most
effective way to achieve the objectives of the European Neigh-
bourhood Policy;

1.4.2
agrees that the ambition and pace of development of
the EU's relationship with each partner country will be deter-
mined by its degree of commitment to common values as well
as its will and capacity to implement the priorities agreed in
the Action Plan;

1.4.3
emphasises the importance of a strong focus on
poverty alleviation and the importance of tackling corruption,
described as ‘a significant obstacle to reform in many ENP
countries’;

believes that

1.4.4
it would have been advantageous for
each Action Plan to have contained a specific section on the
role of local and regional government in the relevant partner
country, detailing clear targets for both the role of local govern-
ment and the ways by which the partner country intended to
devolve powers and strengthen local and regional government.
This desire should be commuted to the Commission with a
view that such a specific section should be incorporated in the
next tranche of Action Plans;

believes that its members have an important role in
1.4.5
analysing and debating the funding made available to each
partner country especially in light of the statement made in the
ENP strategy paper,
‘The Commission has proposed that
existing funds or their successors be increased significantly
under the new financial perspectives,
in keeping with the
priority given by the EU to the ENP.’ The new simplified
funding mechanism intended for adoption in 2007 additionally
makes such analysis and debate a priority.

1.5 European Neighbourhood Instrument

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

1.5.1
system, the European Neighbourhood Instrument;

the proposed new simplified funding

welcomes

that

believes

1.5.2
the Commission as a priority must
provide greater information and technical details as to how the
Instrument will work in practice, how it will be administered
and how it will be scrutinised.

(1) European Neighbourhood Policy – Strategy Paper, 12.5.2004, p.11

C 231/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

2. The Committee of the Regions' Recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

believes that the use of its members' experience could be
2.1
used to develop local and regional democracy, which is indis-
pensable to political stability in the countries identified;

2.2
recommends that in order to overcome the difficulties
facing local and regional authorities in those countries identi-
fied in the ENP, the CoR develops suitable mechanisms to
encourage direct dialogue and information transfers;

2.3
recommends that those countries carrying out the neces-
sary reforms to place themselves on the road to democracy and
free and fair elections should receive the full benefit of the ENP;

2.4
recommends that the European Neighbourhood Policy
offers the prospect of new contractual agreements with partner
countries which could take the form of European Neighbour-
hood Agreements. The scope of these would be defined in the
light of progress in meeting the priorities set out in the Action
Plans;

proposes that the Action Plans will be monitored using
2.5
existing structures under the various Partnership and Coopera-
tion/Association Agreements, with formal progress reports
produced between two and five years after the Action Plans are
adopted;

2.6
like
recommends to the European Commission that,
enlargement before, its members should play a leading role in
the evaluation of the progress of the Action Plans focusing
primary on the steps to empower and modernise local and
regional government;

2.7
recommends that for the next tranche of Action Plans
for each neighbourhood country a specific section on the role
of
in each partner country
should be included, detailing clear targets for both the role of

local and regional government

Brussels, 14 April 2005

local government and the ways by which the partner country
intends to devolve such powers including a clear and trans-
parent timeframe to achieve such an objective;

2.8
believes that any Action Plan must have joint ownership
with the priorities based on clear and credible economic incen-
tives
the
for promoting positive change and thus assist
targeting of technical assistance;

2.9
believes that there is an urgent and fundamental need to
improve and modernise local and regional government in those
countries identified in the ENP including a dramatic improve-
ment in regard to fair and free elections, democratic values and
political freedoms at the local level and recommends that the
Commission initiates a specific programme as part of
the
Action Plan for each neighbourhood country to achieve this
objective (see appendix 1);

recommends that within the proposed new simplified
2.10
funding system,
the European Neighbourhood Instrument,
serious thought should be given to a specific financial instru-
ment that is tailor-made for decentralised cooperation and is
intended for use by local and regional authorities to help
modernise and reform their operations in the neighbourhood
countries;

2.11
recommends that the European Commission gives to it
and its members the possibility to play a leading and active
role in assessing and discussing the new European Neighbour-
hood Instruments;

2.12
recommends, in order to facilitate this process, that a
conference is held in 2006 that would seek to bring together
representatives from local and regional government from all
states as outlined in the ENP with the possibility of four sepa-
rate conferences dealing in turn with the Mediterranean
Region, the Baltic Sea Region and the countries of Eastern
Europe and the Middle East.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/63

Appendix

Local and Regional Government in ENP Countries

Belarus

The country is divided into 6 voblastsi and one municipality. Belarus has a three-tier system for local governments. The
divisions are regional, district, city, village and settlement soviets (councils). The regional soviets are the highest-ranking
units and direct the activities of the district soviets, which in turn direct city, village and settlement soviets. Soviet repre-
sentatives are to be elected every four years. The soviets ‘coordinate functions of the whole local self-government system;
fulfil public, economic and social-cultural construction within the framework of their authorities; take care of natural
resources, public property, protection of the environment, etc.’ (1)

Moldova

Moldovian politics is dominated by tensions between the central government and separatists in the Transnistrian and
Gagauzia regions. Ethnic, social, economic and cultural differences between Moldovans, Russians, Ukrainians and
Gagauz came to a head in 1990 when Moldovan was proclaimed the national language. Both regions claimed to be
separate regions from Moldova. Gaguazia has been granted special constitutional status and this has ended the major
conflict between separatists and the central government. Negotiations facilitated by Russia, the OSCE and Ukraine have
been unable to solve the conflict between Transnistrian and Moldova.

The latest local and regional elections were held in May and November 2003 and were considered to meet basic interna-
tional standards..

Legislation in March 2003 reorganised local government back to the Soviet period. The country is now divided into 33
‘rayons’, replacing the twelve regional ‘judeti’ (counties).* More specifically, there were 9 ‘judeti’, 1 municipality, 1 auton-
omous territorial unit, and 1 territorial unit. The reorganisation was proposed in the Communist Party's re-election
manifesto in 2001 and mirrors the party's regional organisation. Many people have criticised the Communist Party for
reorganising local government to solidify their hold as the majority governing party and gain an advantage in local
government elections. (2)

Ukraine

Ukraine is divided into 24 oblasti, 1 autonomous republic, and 2 municipalities with oblast status. These divisions are
outdated and left over from the Soviet era. Oblasti are further subdivided into ‘radas’ (councils). Representatives for the
radas are chosen by single mandate district elections. These elections are not usually fair — the heads of district and
regional administrations, appointed by the President, often interfere in local elections. Opposition parties have
‘demanded the introduction of a proportional system in regional and district elections to prevent the domination of a
'non-party' bureaucracy’. (3)

Regional votes held since the parliamentary elections of 2002 have not met international standards, but are improving.
For example, ‘during the Mukacheve mayoral election in April 2004, OSCE representatives noted an attack on a polling
station, intimidation, and physical assault resulting in the hospitalisation of an observer. Other problems such as theft of
ballots were also reported and the election result was widely seen as fraudulent’. (4) Local elections in Odessa and Poltava
in May and June 2004 were an improvement despite problems with voter registration. It is obvious that local govern-
ment is not completely democratic.

Russia

Russia is divided into 49 oblasts, 21 republics, 10 autonomous okrugs, 6 krays, 2 federal cities, and 1 autonomous
oblast. Or it is divided into 89 subjects, 21 national administrative units (national republics), 66 territorial units and 2
federal cities. (5) Local government within the Russian Federation continues to struggle with decentralisation following
the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As a result of the transition to a federal state, many national republics gained more
power than other federal units. For example, national republics' legislation often contradicts federal legislation.

(1) Local Government and Regional development Initiative, Report on Belarus 1994, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/docu-

ments/UNTC/UNPAN003979.htm 25.10.2004

(2) FCO

Country

Profile,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019672579768, 25.10.2004

(3) UNPAN Nations in Transit 2004: Country Report Ukraine, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/

UNPAN017053.pdf, 25.10.2004
Profile,
Country

(4) FCO

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019745009984, 25.10.2004

(5) UNPAN Modernising the Relationship between Levels of Government Russia, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/

NISPAcee/UNPAN009033.pdf, 25.10.2004

C 231/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

President Putin introduced a program of reforms in 2000 to solve inefficiencies in local government organisation. Under
this program, Russia is divided into 7 major regions by consolidating the various federal units. The institution of the
Executive Representative of the President of the Russian Federation was created for each federal unit. The primary goal
of this program is to increase efficiency of public management and governance and the development of local govern-
ment ‘as a major agency of civil society and maintenance of responsible government’. (1)

Following the terrorist attack in Beslan, September 2004, President Putin announced a radical reform in regard to the
election of the country's 89 regional governors. Rather than being directly elected they will be in future nominated by
the president, then confirmed by regional legislatures. The plan was endorsed by the country's Duma in October 2004.

Algeria

Algeria is divided into 48 provinces (wilayas, singular — wilaya) each with an elected local council that serves as the
main governing body. The latest municipal elections were held in October 2002. Turnout for elections is usually around
50 % and is hindered by the many regional conflicts between the central government and Berber insurgents. (2) There is
a lack of local autonomy; governors report directly to the Ministry of the Interior. Decentralisation has been effective at
the provincial level in managing local infrastructure and services. (3)

Egypt

Egypt is divided into 26 governorates (muhafazat, singular — muhafazah). The central government wields a large
amount of power in local governing bodies because of a system of top-down political appointments. ‘At each level,
there was a governing structure that combined representative councils and government-appointed executive organs
headed by governors, district officers, and mayors, respectively.’ (4) Local government is ineffective in delivering govern-
ment services.

Decentralisation gained momentum under President Sadat. Local governments were given the power to raise taxes but
were forced to spend large amounts of money on government schemes and often went into debt. They were also encour-
aged to enter into partnership with private companies, which supported the relationship between the central govern-
ment and the country's rich and elite. Under Mubarak, the process of decentralisation has continued and local govern-
ments now reflect more local concerns and less central policy.. Local government is also used as a means of control.
‘The district police station balanced the notables, and the system of local government (the mayor and council) integrated
them into the regime.’ (5)

Israel

Israel is divided into 6 districts (mehozot, singular — mehoz). The districts are further divided into fourteen subdistricts,
each headed by district commissioners appointed by the Prime Minister. District commissioners are responsible for
reviewing policy of the district councils and enacting national legislation within the district. The municipal and local
council members are elected by proportional representation and party lists and the mayor is elected directly by voters in
specific municipalities. Local government is responsible for administering public goods and levying local taxes. (6)

Jordan

Jordan's local government reflects the fact that power rests with the King and his government. The country is divided
into 12 governorates, each headed by an appointed commissioner. The governorates are further divided into administra-
tive subregions. Subregions include towns, villages and municipalities. Larger municipalities have elected district councils
and elected mayors. District governments are basically a vehicle for central governmental policy and legislation. (7) Muni-
cipal and regional governments rely on the central government for allocation of funds and the administration of public
services and infrastructure, limiting their ability to address local issues. Rapid urbanisation has put pressure on local
governments and municipalities to provide adequate services. Recent decentralisation has mainly taken the form of
privatising state-owned industries. (8)

(1) UNPAN Modernising the Relationship between Levels of Government Russia, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/

NISPAcee/UNPAN009033.pdf, 25.10.2004

(2) FCO

Country

Profile,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018535850896, 26.10.2004

(3) UNDP-Programme On Governance in the Arab Region (POGAR), http://www.pogar.org/countries/algeria/decentralisation.html,

28.10.2004

(4) US Library of Congress Country Studies, http://countrystudies.us/egypt/113.htm, 27.10.2004
(5) US Library of Congress Country Studies, http://countrystudies.us/egypt/113.htm, 27.10.2004
(6) US Library of Congress Country Studies, http://countrystudies.us/israel/85.htm, 27.10.2004
(7) Jordan national website, http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/government2.html, 27.10.2004
(8) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/jordan/decentralisation.html, 28.10.2004

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/65

Lebanon

Lebanon's local government is uncertain at the moment as the central government attempts to rebuild the nation after
16 years of civil war. The central government took over local administration as a means of retaining control during the
war. The debate between a strong central government versus a decentralised state will affect the development of local
government in the years to come. (1) Syria's continued involvement in Lebanon has reinforced central government.
Decentralisation in practice has little support from the government due to the political instability of the country. (2)

Lebanon is divided into 6 governorates, which are further subdivided into administrative municipalities. The first local
elections in 35 years were held in 1998. ‘Voter participation was high, on average between 60-70 %. In Beirut only
30 % voted but this was perceived to be due to voters thinking that the result was a foregone conclusion. There was
little evidence of fraud or violence. The elections mark a further stage in post conflict reconstruction.’ (3) Local govern-
ments rely on the central government for allocation of funds, which limits their ability to address local issues.

Libya

Libya was historically made up of distinct regions, which were consolidated into a federation under King Idris. This
federation was replaced with a unitary system in 1963. The ten governorates were basically an extension of the central
government. After Qadhafi's revolution in 1969, the local divisions were further consolidated to allow for greater over-
sight by the central government. ‘For the most part, subnational government continued to function as a hierarchical
system of administrative links with the central government rather than as a vehicle for popular representation or partici-
pation.’ (4) The current local administration, according to the CIA World Fact Book, consists of 25 municipalities (note
— the 25 municipalities may have been replaced by 13 regions).

The process of decentralisation faces many hurdles. Oil exports are a major part of Libya's economy and its revenues
help to prop up the government. ‘The highly centralised nature of the distribution of oil profits in Libya has undermined
efforts to achieve decentralisation.’ (5) Although Libyan law gives local governments responsibility for education, industry
and communities, in practice the central government dictates local policy. ‘By law, Libya has one of the most politically
decentralised systems in the Arab region. Local governmental institutions extend over education, industry, and commu-
nities. But in practice, the central leadership dictates the power of these institutions. Civil society and all non-state poli-
tical organisations are actively suppressed, creating little political participation from the bottom up. Many of the elites
who could be expected to fill positions of local leadership reside overseas.’ (6)

Morocco

The process of decentralisation began in the 1960s as a response to growing social pressures. ‘The major constraints on
the decentralisation process are first of all, the absence of coordination between levels of government, and then the
weak capacity of civil society organisations and local governments.’ (7) The biggest hurdle facing the development of
local government is Morocco's strong central government and lack of local democracy. The constitutional monarchy is
still powerful and is slowly evolving to a parliamentary system. The parliament is democratically elected and the latest
elections held in 2002 were the most free and fair in the region. (8)

The country has 37 provinces and 2 wilayas and ‘as part of a 1997 decentralisation/regionalisation law passed by the
legislature 16 new regions (provided below) were created.’ Each province is governed by an assembly, which is elected
by the municipal councils. Municipalities oversee infrastructure and local services. They are often constrained by lack of
funding as they lack fiscal autonomy. The last municipal election was held in 1997 and was criticised as fraudulent by
opposition parties. (9)

(1) World Bank: Municipalities in Lebanon, http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/mdf/mdf1/munici.htm, 27.10.2004
(2) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/lebanon/decentralisation.html, 28.10.2004
(3) FCO

Country

Profile,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1018721190906, 27.10.2004

(4) US Library of Congress Country Studies, http://countrystudies.us/libya/70.htm, 27.10.2004
(5) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/libya/decentralisation.html, 27.10.2004
(6) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/libya/decentralisation.html, 27.10.2004
(7) UN case studies, http://www.ciesin.org/decentralisation/English/CaseStudies/morocco.html, 27.10.2004
(8) FCO

Country

Profiles,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1020281580149, 27.10.2004

(9) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/morocco/decentralisation.html, 28.10.2004

C 231/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

Syria

Syria is divided into 14 provinces ‘that are headed by governors appointed by the Ministry of Interior. These governors
report directly to the president. The governors control provincial government offices as well as the local offices of minis-
tries and state-owned enterprises. Below the provinces, there are, in descending order of authority, districts, counties,
and villages. Locally elected administrative councils administer these governments, though in practice they remain highly
dependent on central leadership.’ (1) Syria's extensive civil service and history of strong central leadership is a hindrance
to the development of local governmental organisation. Administration is dependent on decision-making of a small
group of individuals at the top. The last local elections were held in 1999. (2) Some decentralisation programs have
begun under Prime Minister Miru, but decentralisation will probably be a slow process unless local democracy is devel-
oped simultaneously.

Tunisia

Tunisia has a highly centralised government that has not been receptive to the notion of decentralisation. Politics is
dominated by the ruling Rassemblement Constitutionnel Democratique (RCD) and President Ali, who has been in power
since 1987. The tradition of central planning includes government control of the economy. There have been some
moves towards decentralisation through the establishment of municipal councils, but these are not developed consis-
tently throughout the nation and are mainly instruments of the central government.

Tunisia is divided into 24 governorates, each headed by governors appointed by the government. The governorates have
legislative assemblies made up of members both elected and appointed. Most rural areas lack local governing bodies and
the central government retains control over fiscal policy and taxation. ‘Many municipalities have been frustrated by a
lack of funds. The lack of a uniform or standardised municipal structure in Tunisia has allowed some local governments
to push ahead, while others trail behind.’ (3) The latest local elections were held in 2002 with the majority of seats going
to RCD candidates.

There is both local and governmental support for the further development of local governments. Civil society organisa-
tions are pushing for greater participation in local affairs. The government sees this as an opportunity to diffuse political
tensions and retain political stability. It has also implemented regional development plans to create new infrastructure
and decentralise management of infrastructure. (4)

Armenia

Armenian politics has been dominated by the struggle with Azerbaijan for the Nagorno-Karabakh region, populated
primarily by citizens of Armenian descent. Armenia is divided into 11 provinces. The last local elections were held in
November 1996. Despite the fact that the presidential elections were criticised by many as unfair and resulted in violent
clashes between protesters and the police, the Council of Europe observers deemed these elections to have been free and
fair. (5) Local governments are merely an extension of the central government to implement policy. (6) Rampant corrup-
tion and a weak political system has limited the development of local governing organisations.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan continues to struggle economically and politically due to the conflict with Armenia over the Nagorno-Kara-
bakh region. Its resources are strained by the loss of territory and the need to provide services for over 800 000 refu-
gees. Although Azerbaijan has many petroleum reserves, these are not well developed. There are so many problems with
national government, including election fraud, corruption and a crackdown on opposition parties and the media, that
local government seems to be fairly undeveloped and ineffective. Azerbaijan is divided into 59 rayons, 11 cities, and 1
autonomous republic.

Georgia

The political climate over the past decade has been tumultuous. However, despite the various assassinations of top offi-
cials and assassination attempts on President Shevardnadze, elections held in 1992 and 2004 have been seen as generally
free and fair. Georgia is moving towards democracy and in recent years has enjoyed greater political stability. Georgia's
administrative divisions include 9 regions, 9 cities, and 2 autonomous republics.

(1) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/syria/decentralisation.html, 27.10.2004
(2) FCO

Country

Profile,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1021373886647, 28.10.2004

(3) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/tunisia/decentralisation.html, 28.10.2004
(4) UNDP-POGAR, http://www.pogar.org/countries/tunisia/decentralisation.html, 28.10.2004
(5) FCO

World

Book,

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&ci-

d=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019233781786, 28.10.2004

(6) US Library of Congress Country Studies, http://countrystudies.us/armenia/47.htm, 28.10.2004