|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 47
Pour débat à la Commision permanente – Voir article 47 du Règlement
Doc. 8028
26 February 1998
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe: recent activities and proposals for reform
Report
Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities
Rapporteur : Mr Gianni Risari, Italy, Group of the European People's Party
Summary
Over the past four years, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe has become a high-profile body of the Council of Europe, and brilliantly carried out the task it has been entrusted with. It has been instrumental in promoting the Council of Europe’s views on local and regional democracy throughout the continent and beyond. As to its relationship with the Assembly, it has been very fruitful and there is no reason that this should not continue in the future.
Two transitory provisions of the CLRAE Charter will have to be re-examined in less than two years’ time. The Assembly deems this is the right time to consider other possible reforms that would improve the way the CLRAE works and boost its prestige as the body representing local and regional government in Europe.
This report contains an overview of the CLRAE’s recent activities and some proposals regarding how to reform its Charter.
I. Draft recommendation
1. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (CLRAE) was set up in 1994 as the consultative body representing local and regional authorities. Over the past four years, it has continuously increased its standing within the organisation thanks to the excellent work it has carried out promoting local and regional democracy as key values of the Council of Europe and following-up the implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
2. The Assembly, which has a very fruitful working relationship with the Congress, welcomes this. It wishes that the CLRAE be further developed and given more means to carry out its tasks.
3. The Committee of Ministers will have to re-examine two transitory provisions of the CLRAE's Charter in less than two years' time. These deal with two fundamental issues: finance and the membership criteria of the Chamber of Regions. One of these transitory provisions should have already been examined, but the Committee of Ministers, at the request of the CLRAE, decided to extend its validity for another three years.
4. Not only does the Assembly think that these two transitory provisions should change if the Congress is to develop its role further, but it also proposes that a wider reform of the CLRAE should be considered on this occasion. The Council of Europe has always taken the lead in shaping the role of local and regional government in European affairs. Now is the time to take another step ahead.
5. For these reasons, the Parliamentary Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers :
i. establish a political dialogue with the CLRAE and the Parliamentary Assembly which should lead to a reform of the CLRAE Charter in the year 2000, and, in this respect, to consider :
a. re-introducing some specialised committees in the CLRAE without for that matter eliminating the present working party system;
b. eliminating the current limit which restricts working party membership to a maximum of eleven people;
c. reforming Article 4 of the Charter so as to allow the CLRAE to hold more than one plenary session every year;
d. stricter rules governing membership of the Chamber of Regions, so as to make sure that only countries with true intermediate tiers of government may appoint full members, and countries which plan on setting up regions may send observers from the Chamber of Local Authorities;
e. reforming Article 2 of the Congress Charter so as to ensure that only holders of a local or regional electoral mandate or politicians on whom an elected assembly can pass a vote of no confidence, thus forcing their resignation, are eligible for CLRAE membership;
f. increasing the budget of the CLRAE substantially and reinforcing its Secretariat;
ii. to make the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government into a binding European treaty as soon as possible;
iii. to invite member countries which have not yet done so to sign and ratify the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
II. Draft resolution
1. Since the establishment of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly has continuously lent its support to the creation of appropriate fora for local and regional government to take part in European construction. It has been instrumental in creating the Standing Conference of Local Authorities and has welcomed the recent establishment of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE).
2. The Parliamentary Assembly has had a fruitful working relationship with the CLRAE since it was established four years ago. This co-operation has been particularly active in the fields of trans-frontier and inter-regional co-operation, sustainable development in the Mediterranean, and regional planning. The Assembly trusts that this will lead in future to more joint initiatives.
3. The Assembly wishes to recall its commitment to local and regional self-government, which it considers core values of the Council of Europe and of any truly democratic state, and congratulates the CLRAE on the new impetus it has given to the Organisation's activities in this field.
4. It also wishes to recall its support for the Congress' recent initiative to draw up a draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government, which the Assembly would like the Committee of Ministers to adopt as a binding international treaty as soon as possible.
5. The Assembly welcomes the stricter line taken by the Congress over the past years when verifying its members’ credentials, which has doubtless helped increase the political weight of the CLRAE within the organisation. It renews its call for the Congress to be made up solely of politicians holding a local or regional electoral mandate or of politicians whom an elected political assembly can force to resign by passing a vote of no confidence.
6. The Assembly notes, however, that some aspects of the functioning of the CLRAE could be improved, such as, inter alia, the make-up of the Chamber of Regions, and its working party system. The CLRAE might wish to start considering possible reforms with a view to amending its Charter in the year 2000, when two transitory provisions come to an end and will have to be re-examined by the Committee of Ministers.
7. The Assembly welcomes the decision to hold a political colloquy between elected representatives and ministerial delegates before the next meeting of the European Conference of Ministers responsible for regional planning (CEMAT). It hopes that co-ordination between the CEMAT, the CLRAE and the Parliamentary Assembly will help develop a European regional/spatial planning concept for the whole of Europe.
8. The Parliamentary Assembly invites the CLRAE :
i. to increase its effort to promote local democracy as a core value of the Council of Europe, and to follow the implementation of the European Charter of Local Self-Government by its signatories;
ii. to continue writing country reports on the state of local and regional government with a view to strengthening and improving these tiers of government throughout Europe;
iii. to give thought to possible internal reforms that would make its decision-making mechanism more agile and allow as many members as possible to take part in its activities;
iv to pursue the strict verification of its members' credentials and insist that members be either holders of a local or regional elected mandate or, failing this, local or regional politicians whom an elected local or regional political assembly can force to resign by passing a vote of no confidence;
v. to give thought to the role and shape it wishes to give the Chamber of Regions after the year 2000, with a view to strengthening it;
vi. to apply its rules of procedure strictly in order to make sure that members, and not their counsels or assistants, take the floor at working party meetings;
vii. to envisage holding an additional annual session of the two chambers, outside the plenary sessions;
viii. to consider possible formulas that would allow the CLRAE, and the Chamber of Regions in particular, to hold a political dialogue with regions having legislative power;
ix. to keep bringing up proposals as to how local and regional self-government can help ease minority issues in the Council of Europe’s member countries;
x. to keep analysing how within the scope of their attributions local and regional authorities can promote the implementation of a "Local Agenda 21" as indicated in the Chapter 28 of the Agenda 21 adopted at the Rio Conference;
xi. to launch new initiatives regarding Europe’s island and peripheral regions.
III. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Risari
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Structure and functioning of the CLRAE
2.1 Membership
2.2 Working parties
2.3 Meetings
2.4 Secretariat
2.5 The Chamber of Regions
2.5.2 Membership
2.5.2 Participation of regions with legislative powers
3. Texts adopted by the CLRAE
3.1 Follow-up to the European Charter of Local Self-Government
3.2 Local and Regional Democracy in Member and Applicant Countries
3.3 Draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government
3.4 Preliminary draft European Landscape Charter
3.5 Other documents
4. Revision of the CLRAE Charter's transitory provisions : Financing the CLRAE
1. Introduction
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe established the new Congress of Local and Regional Authorities on 14 January 1994, following the decision made by the member countries’ Heads of State and Government at the Vienna Summit. It did so by means of Statutory Resolution no. 94 (3), which defines the Congress as “the organ representing local and regional authorities” within the Organisation.
Since the establishment of the CLRAE, the Assembly has adopted a number of documents about the Congress, namely Recommendation 1256 (1995), Order No. 502 (1995), Resolution 1053 (1995), and Recommendation 1280 (1995).
The Rapporteur should like to welcome the excellent co-operation that there has been between the CLRAE and the Parliamentary Assembly in a number of fields, and express its trust that this relationship will keep on being as productive in future. In particular, the Rapporteur wishes to underline the joint efforts carried out in organising the Conferences of Mediterranean Regions, the work done in the area of regional planning and trans-frontier and inter-territorial co-operation. The Rapporteur should like to take this opportunity to make a new proposal and invite the CLRAE to launch, in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly, a new series of conferences on island and peripheral regions along the lines of those organised by its forerunner, which yielded such excellent results.
Another area in which the CLRAE and the Assembly have had an excellent working relationship is regional/spatial planning. Regional/spatial planning is a subject area of great importance for local and regional representatives. Co-operation between the Assembly and the CLRAE’s forerunners in this area dates back to the 1960s. This co-operation is exemplified by the the participation of the Assembly and the CLRAE in the European Conferences of Ministers responsible for regional/spatial planning. In fact, they are both contributing to the Ministerial Conference by means of the colloquies that are usually held on the eve of such Ministerial meetings. Co-operation is already going on to prepare the 12th CEMAT, which will be held in the year 2000 in Hanover (Germany).
It is now time for the Assembly to draw up a new report on the CLRAE, for two reasons mainly. Firstly, the CLRAE has held two plenary sessions since the Assembly last adopted a document on the Congress’s activities. After gaining experience from its first two plenary sessions, the CLRAE has now perfected its working methods and reached cruising speed. Among other things, it now has a full set of rules of procedure which have been amended to incorporate the teachings of the first two sessions, and has established a significant number of working parties. Secondly, and most importantly, two transitional provisions laid down in the Congress Charter will have to be re-examined by the Committee of Ministers in less than two years’ time. As these two provisions deal with two key issues for the Congress, i.e. membership and finance, the Committee of Ministers’ decision might have a very important effect on the future shape of the CLRAE. Therefore, the Assembly, which has attached much importance to the development of the CLRAE, should take this opportunity to express its views on the issue.
2. Structure and functioning of the CLRAE
2.1 Membership
Under Article 2 of the Congress Charter, the CLRAE is made up of “representatives who shall be chosen from among holders of a local or regional authority electoral mandate or of a mandate as a person directly responsible to an elected local or regional body”.
In the past, the Assembly has called for this article to be amended so that only representatives holding an elective mandate may become members of the Congress. It has also called for a strict verification of the credentials of members and substitutes, both as regards the requirements to be eligible for CLRAE membership and the time limits imposed on their mandates.
The Assembly is glad to note that there has been much progress in this respect. The Congress has taken a tougher line as regards its members’ credentials, and has been particularly mindful of the need to keep a political balance within its national delegations. In some cases, it has rejected a member’s credentials because it has found them to be in violation of the Congress Charter’s provisions, and has not hesitated to ask for clarification whenever it felt it was needed. The Assembly can but welcome this stance, for it strengthens the CLRAE’s standing as a body, which truly stands for democratic local and regional government.
However, much remains to be done, especially as regards the second part of Article 2, i.e. the clause that makes it possible for countries to appoint to the CLRAE delegates which have not been democratically elected to the office they hold in a local (or regional) government. Although it is true that the Congress’s tougher stance has caused some delegations to restrict to a bare minimum the number of delegates in this situation, it is also true that a few unelected government appointees still belong to the CLRAE.
Traditionally, the argument used to support this policy has been that local government structures differ substantially on a country-to-country basis, and that in some countries it is customary for the central Government to appoint a civil servant at the head of a city or regional council. Although he is not entirely unresponsive to this position, the Rapporteur takes the view that the CLRAE can best defend the Organisation’s values, and local democracy in particular, if all of its members have been elected. The Rapporteur does, however, understand the need for some flexibility, especially as the CLRAE does not represent city and regional assemblies, but their authorities as a whole (i.e., including their executive bodies). Yet, the possibility of appointing an unelected member of a local or regional executive should be restricted to the very minimum.
The problem is to define what is a "‘person directly responsible to a local or regional elected body". To the Rapporteur, this means at least three things : firstly, that the local or regional assembly has the power to exert its control over the executive body to which the delegate belongs ; secondly, that it can pass a vote of no confidence either on the individual or on the executive as a whole ; thirdly, that under the legislation governing local and regional authorities in that country, the city or regional executive (or a member thereof) which has lost a vote of no confidence must resign.
Furthermore, the Rapporteur takes the view that where a country’s political system allows members of a city or regional executive to be at the same time elected members of the corresponding assembly, the above-mentioned clause should not apply. In other words, preference should be given in such cases to members of the executive who also hold an electoral mandate as a city councillor or as a member of a regional parliament.
In the past, the CLRAE has asked member countries to draw up closed lists of offices, that are considered ‘directly responsible to an elected local or regional elected body’. The Rapporteur deems the result rather unsatisfactory. A few countries only have submitted accurate information, and, as said above, the CLRAE has accepted some exceptions. To the Rapporteur’s mind the CLRAE should avoid this in future if it is to strengthen its position within the Organisation. Therefore, the Rapporteur would recommend that the Committee of Ministers clarify this rule in future along the lines suggested above. And, at any rate, the rule should apply to a bare minimum of truly exceptional cases.
2.2 Working parties
Unlike its forerunner (the former Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities) the new Congress does not have any specialised committees. Instead, it has the right to set up an unlimited number of ‘working parties’ made up of a maximum of eleven members. Like any other system, this one has its advantages and disadvantages. However, four years into its existence, the Rapporteur takes the view that the latter outweigh the former. The system would benefit from an overhaul.
For one, the sheer number of working parties (currently twenty-four) set up by the Congress seems too burdensome for the Secretariat to manage, unless the latter is reinforced. A second major disadvantage is the cap the CLRAE Charter imposes on group membership. Currently, no more than eleven members can make up a working group. It is difficult to find a rationale for this, other than avoiding the proliferation of large working parties. In any case, the Rapporteur wonders why the limit was set precisely at eleven members. In practice, now that forty-three countries send delegations to the Congress, many members who could contribute substantially to a group’s activities are barred from attending its meetings because of this limits. The Congress has had to find ways around this to allow more members to attend working group meetings. For instance, two ‘twin’ working groups have been set up which are made up by eleven members of the Chamber of Regions and eleven members of the Chamber of Local authorities. This is a commendable measure, but it does not quite solve the problem. Lastly, the rationale for setting up working parties rather than permanent committees is that they should carry out very precise terms of reference and be disbanded when the duty is done. However, some groups, which relate to the very core of the CLRAE’s aims – such as the group on the European Charter of Local Self-Government - are carrying out a continuing activity which does not stop when a report is adopted
As to the right to speak in working parties, the Rapporteur thinks that the CLRAE ought to apply its rules and regulations more strictly. Whereas only members or independent experts are entitled to take the floor at working party meetings, the CLRAE seems to have developed an excessively tolerant habit of letting members’ counsels and assistants speak on policy issues, even when the Congress member is not present. The Rapporteur thinks this is a dangerous practice, which doubtless dents the CLRAE’s prestige as a political body.
The Assembly already expressed doubts about this working party system in its Resolution 1053 (95), which called upon the Congress to “limit the number of working groups and, if necessary, envisage recourse to specialised committees”. Two years later, the Assembly’s views are confirmed. It is undeniable that the working group system has many advantages, such as allowing a small number of members to carry out a very precise task in a swift manner. Yet, the Rapporteur takes the view that as a whole the system is too rigid and burdensome and does not cater for all the needs of the Congress. Probably, a combination of standing committees and a limited number of small working parties would be best. Needless to say, it will be up to the Congress itself to review the system before any proposals are forwarded to the Committee of Ministers (for such a reform requires an amendment to the CLRAE Charter). The Rapporteur expresses its hope that the CLRAE will give some thought to these questions and come up with suitable proposals in the near future.
2.3 Meetings
The Congress has been extremely productive over the last four years. It has adopted 37 Recommendations, 58 Resolutions and 7 Opinions. What is more impressive is that it has done so even though it can only meet once a year in plenary. This, in the Rapporteur’s view, reflects the Congress’s ever-increasing political role, which, in turn, is a sign of the new impetus local government and regions are showing in our respective countries. Why, then, should the body representing these authorities be allowed to meet once a year only? The lid put on the number of yearly meetings curtails the Congress’s ability to react to political events affecting local and regional government, which sometimes require a swift response, and overburdens its Standing Committee. Furthermore, the Congress has clearly demonstrated its will to play an increasingly important role within our Organisation and should be given the means to do it. The Rapporteur takes the view that the Congress should be allowed to meet at least once more every year, and therefore invites the Assembly to ask the Committee of Ministers to re-examine Article 4 of Statutory Resolution (94) 3, and Article 5 of the CLRAE Charter.
Another issue which the Assembly raised two years ago1 was the need to set up standing committees for both Chambers, alongside the Congress’s own. Otherwise, the Chambers would not have been able to meet between the plenary sessions. The Rapporteur welcomes the reform operated by the CLRAE and is glad to note that it did not take a formal reform of its Charter. If the Congress can meet in chambers it was only logical that its Standing Committee, which acts on its behalf, should be allowed to do the same thing. Moreover, the Standing Committee’s structure allows it as it is made up, for the most part, of one representative of each Chamber for every country.
2.4 Secretariat
As previously pointed out, the CLRAE’s profile within the Council of Europe has improved notoriously, thanks to the excellent work it has carried out. The Rapporteur wonders whether this increased political weight should not entail a reform of the Secretariat, too. Today, the Congress Secretariat is part of the Directorate for the Environment and Local Authorities, which deals mainly with inter-governmental activities. However, the CLRAE cannot be considered any longer as a typical inter-governmental committee. For one, the Committee of Ministers did not set it up under Article 17 of the Council of Europe Statute, but by means of a Statutory Resolution. Secondly, the CLRAE is not made up of civil servants. Thirdly, it does not represent central governments, but (autonomous) local and regional government. This ‘sui generis’ nature of the CLRAE should, in the Rapporteur’s opinion, reflected on its secretariat. Therefore, the Rapporteur takes the view that the CLRAE Secretariat should be severed from the Directorate for Local and Regional Authorities.
2.5 The Chamber of Regions
2.5.1 Membership
The Assembly has always been in favour of setting up a forum for regions alone, and has, therefore, expressed its satisfaction on several occasions at the establishment of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and at the creation therein of a Chamber of Regions for representatives of regions to discuss their common problems among themselves2. Given the current trends in Europe, where several countries have set up regions with some degree of administrative and even political autonomy, or are considering doing so in the near future, the Council of Europe has taken a step in the right direction. Indeed, to this day, the Chamber of Regions remains the sole public international forum set up for the purpose of representing regions alone.
The Charter of the CLRAE does provide, however, for some transitoury rules and exceptions in this respect. When the Congress was set up in 1994, the Council of Europe deemed it necessary to take account of the transition which many member countries were going through, particularly as to their internal administrative structure. Hence the idea to build a provision3 into the CLRAE Charter that would allow such countries to be present at the Chamber of Regions and thus learn from the experience of others. This clause must be-re-examined by the year 2000, and it is fair to assume that preliminary talks will start soon.
One must keep in mind the reason behind the creation of two Chambers within the new CLRAE, which was to put an end to the mixed representation (i.e., local and regional authorities together) that had been going on in the former Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities. The Assembly, which has always supported this, cannot favour any move that would be tantamount to putting back the clock.
Under the above-mentioned transitory provision, local authority representatives can take up seats in the Chamber of Regions for the time being, provided they meet some conditions (cf. footnote). In practice, the rule has been interpreted in a rather generous manner and, as a result, countries that do not have regions, and probably never will, have been allowed to send representatives to this Chamber. The Rapporteur thinks this works to the detriment of the Chamber. On the contrary, the Rapporteur wishes to praise the decisions taken by some countries, such as San Marino, Iceland or Liechtenstein, which have acted in a consistent manner by not sending any representatives to that Chamber.
The Rapporteur thinks the Charter of the CLRAE should be revised in order to define more clearly who can belong to the Chamber of Regions, and who cannot. Granted, it might be difficult to define exactly what a region is, as the number, structure and powers of administrative and political tiers varies substantially on country-to-country basis. The CLRAE will have to give thought to this question in order to make its views known in due course. However, the Rapporteur wishes to make two preliminary proposals.
First, membership in the Chamber of Regions should only be discussed with regard to countries where there is an intermediate tier of government (ie, between local and central government). The current ‘fictio juris’ which equals regional associations of local authorities to an intermediate tier of government should come to an end.
Secondly, one must take into account some countries that were considering whether to set up regions back in 1994. Some of them have not yet come to a conclusion. Given the political and financial implications of such a decision, the process is bound to be long. Countries in this situation argue that the Chamber of Regions can be an excellent forum for them to learn from other countries’ experience, and that this learning process has not yet finished. The Rapporteur deems this is a point worth considering. However, the aim of the Chamber is to represent regions, and therefore membership should be open to regions alone. In order for other countries to learn about regional government, one could envisage allowing members of their national delegations to attend Chamber of Regions meetings as observers, with the right to speak, but not to vote.
The Rapporteur wishes to comment on another peculiar rule in the CLRAE Charter, aimed at making more Chamber seats available to each national delegation. Under that rule, “substitutes shall be members of the chambers in the same capacity as representatives”. In practical terms, then, each Chamber may have as many full members as the Congress itself, although a Chamber is by definition a fraction of the Congress. Although the Rapporteur can, in principle, understand why such a rule was introduced, he thinks it contrary to parliamentary custom. An alternate must be second to a full member, in both the Congress and the Chambers. Assuming the contrary leads to endless problems and a lot of confusion. To quote one example, a substitute member of the Congress can vote in a Chamber sitting even if all of his delegation’s full members are present. Yet he would be banned from voting at a Congress sitting because there, and only there, he is a substitute. At any rate, these oddities and problems outweigh the political interest of having a larger Chamber.
If the CLRAE and the Committee of Ministers agreed to take up these proposals and reform the Charter of the Congress accordingly, the result would doubtless be a smaller Chamber of Regions, albeit a stronger one. In the Rapporteur’s view, that was the aim behind the reform of the former Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities. Let us be bold enough and take another step ahead.
2.5.2 Participation of regions with legislative powers
Recently, regional parliaments of several European regions with legislative powers held a meeting to discuss matters of common interest. Stronger regions seem to be thus expressing their need for a forum in which they can talk to their peers. The Rapporteur wishes to underline that the Chamber of Regions was set up as a forum for all regions, not only those having a level of power and responsibility nearing that of states. So it should remain. Furthermore, as said above, the Congress does not represent city councils and regional parliaments alone. Yet, the Rapporteur also acknowledges that the claim of these regions is a legitimate one. The Council of Europe, a pioneer organisation in this area, and the CLRAE in particular, ought to find a formula to set up a political dialogue with these regions. The Assembly’s Resolution 1053 (1995) called for the setting up of “a standing working group for regions possessing legislative powers” within the CLRAE. The Rapporteur would like to invite again the CLRAE to consider this proposal, and to bear in mind the need for a political dialogue with regions which have legislative powers.
3. Texts adopted by the CLRAE
As previously said, the CLRAE has been very productive over the past four years, and adopted many reports of a high quality. The Rapporteur would like to make a general comment about a number of reports adopted since 1995. It should be noted, too, that the Assembly has already expressed its views on other CLRAE initiatives, notably the draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government.
3.1 Follow-up to the European Charter of Local Self-Government
It is worth noting that to this day no fewer than twenty-eight countries, i.e. nearly three-quarters of the Council’s members, have ratified this European Treaty. The Assembly has recognised that it has become one of the Organisation’s landmark documents, and has therefore called on applicant countries to sign and ratify it as part of the commitments they are asked to make when joining the Council. The European Charter of Local Self-Government has contributed significantly to the improvement of local democracy throughout Europe, even beyond the borders of countries which have ratified it. The Rapporteur is particularly pleased to note that the United Kingdom signed the treaty last June, and should like to invite all member countries which have not yet done so to sign and ratify the treaty as soon as possible.
The Rapporteur welcomes the initiatives taken by the CLRAE to follow-up the application of the treaty by its signatories. In this respect, the setting up of an independent experts’ committee under the aegis of a special CLRAE working group will help get a clearer picture of the treaty’s strengths and shortcomings, with a view to improving it in future. Given the importance of this treaty, the Rapporteur should like to stress the need for a detailed technical analysis of its application in signatory countries.
Finally, the Rapporteur wishes to underline that the European Charter of Local Self-Government could well become a reference treaty for countries outside Europe. It would be a good thing if the Committee of Ministers agreed to open it for signature and, possibly, ratification by countries which do not belong to the Council of Europe. The Rapporteur considers also that the CLRAE should be allowed to promote it beyond our Organisation’s boundaries, and more particularly in the Mediterranean.
3.2 Local and Regional Democracy in Member and Applicant Countries
As a result of the initiatives it took with regard to a local government crisis in Romania three years ago, the Congress has now taken on board a new activity, i.e. writing political reports on the state of local and regional government in member countries. To this day, the CLRAE has published documents on the state of local government in Romania, Russia, Italy, and Turkey. More such reports are in the pipeline. The Rapporteur welcomes the fact that the CLRAE has defined the procedure it will follow when drafting such reports4, and hopes that the same spirit of constructive co-operation between the CLRAE and the countries’ authorities will prevail in future.
3.3 Draft European Charter of Regional Self-Government
The Parliamentary Assembly has recently adopted Recommendation 1349 (1997) on this draft treaty. The Rapporteur wishes to stress the highly valuable contribution this document can make to European construction by giving, on the one hand, a legal guarantee to existing regions and, on the other hand, a valuable reference point to those countries which are currently reforming their internal political and administrative structures. The Rapporteur, therefore, hopes that the Committee of Ministers will seize this opportunity by speeding up the adoption of the draft Charter as a binding international treaty.
3.4 Draft European Landscape Charter
In conformity with its Resolution 53 (1997) the CLRAE has prepared a draft Convention on Landscape. The Rapporteur is glad to note that the Assembly has taken part in the drafting process and that the Standing Committee will consider an interim Opinion on the CLRAE’s draft. When the Congress adopts the final draft at its 5th Plenary Session, due to take place this year, the Assembly will come back to the question in order to issue its Opinion on this document. Our colleague Mr Ruffy shall be our Rapporteur.
3.5 Other documents
The Rapporteur wishes to underline the CLRAE’s high degree of involvement in the Council of Europe’s activities. In particular, the Rapporteur welcomes the Congress’ initiative to make its views known to the Heads of State and Government on the occasion of the Organisation’s second summit5.
Regarding Resolution 52 on “Federalism, Regionalism, Local Self-Government and Minorities”, the Rapporteur welcomes the CLRAE’s efforts to promote local and regional self-government as a way of solving minority issues in some member states, and hopes it will carry on this work.
Regarding Resolution 54 on Sustainable Development at Local and Regional Levels and Resolution 55 on local and regional financial instruments for the environment in Europe, the Rapporteur wishes to stress that local and regional authorities can play a key role in promoting sustainable development, both within and without their boundaries, and in fighting pollution. The CLRAE’s work in this area can only get the Assembly’s approval.
4. Revision of the CLRAE Charter’s transitory provisions : Financing the CLRAE
As already pointed out, two essential transitory provisions of the CLRAE Charter will have to be re-examined soon. The Rapporteur has already expressed its views on the transitory provision governing membership in the Chamber of Regions. The other one also deserves some comment, as financial issues lie at the very heart of the CLRAE’s future development.
In fact, Transitory Provision6 number 4 should have been re-examined last year, but the Committee of Ministers, decided, at the CLRAE’s request, to put this off for another three years. Hence, it will re-examine Transitory Provisions number 1 and 4 together, when the former expires7.
This is not the first time the Assembly expresses its views on this issue. In Resolution 1053 (95), it invited the CLRAE “to provide for the holding of an additional annual session for the two chambers, outside the plenary sessions, while resorting to funding by the Congress's representatives if appropriate”. The CLRAE has taken up this proposal and conducted a series of test runs by opening the Standing Committee meetings to other members. However, apart from the members of the Standing Committee apart, the turnout was poor.
5. The Rapporteur understands that, in some countries, various problems make it difficult for local and, in some cases, regional authorities to pay for their own expenses concerning their participation in the CLRAE. While it is true that in some countries there is not a single independent national association of local authorities who could foot the bill, other possible solutions have not been fully explored. Therefore, the Rapporteur should like to encourage the CLRAE to give further thought to this issue, as he is convinced that the present solution puts a heavy lid on the CLRAE’s political profile within the Council of Europe.
Reporting committee: Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly : none.
Origin : Standing mandate
Draft resolution and draft recommendation unanimously adopted by the committee on 20 February 1998.
Members of the committee: Mr Briane (Chairman), Mr Ruffy, Ms Aytaman, Mr Yamgnane (Vice-Chairpersons), MM. Akçali, Andreoli, Assis Miranda, Besostri, Blaauw (Alternate : Eversdijk), Ms Blunck, MM. Boka, Browne, Sir Sydney Chapman (Alternate : Pickles), MM. Chircop, Ciupaila, Cox, Diana, Ms Dromberg, MM. Feldmann, Frunda (Alternate : Kelemen), Giannattasio (Alternate: Risari) Györivanyi, Haraldsson, Hoeffel, Johansson, Ms Johansson, MM. Kieres, Kittis, Koçi, Korakas, Kukk, Lachat, Luczak, Martinez Casan (Alternate : Onaindia), Minkov, Molnar, Mota Amaral, Mozetic, Oleinik, Penz, Prokes (Alternate : Fico), Prosser (Alternate : O'Hara), Prusi, Rados, Rakhansky, Recoder, Ms Riess-Passer, MM. Rise, Samofalov, Ms Severinsen, MM. Shishlov, Skoularikis, Sobyanin, Staes, Steolea, Svoboda, Theis, Toshev, Valkeniers,Vishnyakov, Woltjer, Zierer.
N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Ms Cagnolati-Staveris, MM Chevtchenko and Grau Tanner.
1 In Resolution 1053 (95), the Assembly called upon the CLRAE to “plan the creation of a standing committee for each of the two chambers”.
2 Cf. Resolution 1256 (95).
3 Transitory provisions: 1. On a temporary basis, states which do not possess regional authorities, that is authorities of a level immediately below national governmental level which have their own attributions and elected organs, may appoint to the Chamber of Regions representatives of bodies of the same level, made up, on a regional basis, of elected representatives of local authorities or of regional associations of local authorities. This provision shall be re-examined after a six-year period.
4 Cf. Recommendation 18 (1996) on guiding principles for the action of the Congress when preparing reports on Local and Regional Democracy in member States and applicant States, and Resolution 31 (1996) on the same topic.
5 Cf. Recommendation 32 on the contribution of the CLRAE to the 2nd summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe member states.
6 On a temporary basis:
a. a. the expenditure entailed by sessions of the CLRAE, by meetings of the two chambers and by its organs, as well as any other expenditure connected with the activities of the CLRAE, shall be borne by the budget of the Council of Europe. The costs of participation of representatives only are covered by the budget of the Council of Europe;
b. such items of expenditure as can be clearly specified may be entered in a special section of the budget;
c. for the purpose of drawing up the annual budget, the CLRAE shall make its needs known to the Secretary General, who will inform the Committee of Ministers thereof.
7 This provision shall be re-examined after a three-year period.