1

Intermunicipal cooperation and territorial reform

Gérard MarcouProfessor at the University Paris 1 Panthéon-

SorbonneDirector of GRALE

2

I. Basic outline of the territorial patterns in European States

II. Reform pathsIII.The case of France: territorial reform through

multi-functional cooperation

3

I. Basic outline of territorial patterns in European States

•Europe: the scope of CoE, focus on typical examples• Historical development:

- municipalities based on settlements; the local is based on community and neighbourhood;

- intermediate levels: have developed first for the control of the territory by the central government• Rise of democratic values: decentralisation as a way to recognise the responsibility of local communities to manage their own affairs•Development of social functions of the state in modern times has determined the growth of public administration and of the role of local government• As a result all countries have faced the same problem: how to reconcile the representation of the community and the management of new tasks in an economic manner• Territorial structure of European States: 1 to 3 tiers below central government, but variants: a) all of the same nature (local self-government bodies); b) the upper level distinguishes unitary States and compounded States; c) local agencies of the central government or of regional governments in compounded States. These various figures may coexist in the same country

4

Table 1: Comparing territorial patterns of European countriesLevels Unitary States Compounded States

3 levels : municipality ;

département/

province/county/arrondissement (district,

Kreis); region or federative authority

France, Pologne, Ukraine Allemagne, Belgique, Espagne,

Italie, Russie

2 levels :

- 1) municipality, province /

département / arrondissement (district,

Kreis) / county

- 2) municipality, region or

federative authority

1) Croatie, Grèce, Hongrie, Irlande,

Lettonie, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Pologne

(villes à statut d’arrondissement),

Roumanie, Royaume-Uni (Angleterre,

Pays de Galles), Suède, Turquie

2) Albanie, Danemark (au

01/01/2007), France (Paris), Grèce (depuis

2010), République tchèque, Serbie

(Vojvodine), Slovaquie

1) néant

2) Allemagne (kreisfreie Städte)

Autriche, Belgique (Bruxelles-Capitale),

Fédération de Bosnie et Herzégovine,

Portugal (régions insulaires), Espagne

(communautés autonomes

uniprovinciales), Royaume-Uni (Ecosse,

Irlande du Nord), Russie (gorodskoï okrug),

Suisse

1 level : municipalities and joint

authorities

1) Royaume-Uni (Angleterre :

unitary councils et metropolitan districts),

Bulgarie, Chypre, Estonie, Finlande,

Islande, Lituanie, Malte, ex République

yougoslave de Macédoine, Monténégro,

Luxembourg, Portugal (continental),

Republika Srpska, Serbie, Slovénie

2) certaines capitales : Bucarest,

Budapest, Kyiv, Zagreb

Allemagne (cités Etats : Berlin,

Brême, Hambourg) ; Autriche (Vienne)

Russie (Moscou, Saint-Pétersbourg)

5

II. Reform paths

1. Cooperation2. Territorial reform3. Strengthening intermediate levels4. Specific problems of larger urban areas

6

1. Cooperation•A spontaneous way to overcome fragmentation problems in order to carry out joint projects or manage joint interests, on the basis of neighbourhood: historically, joint properties, works of common interest, later on shared companies, joint commissions• Over time, most successful experiences took place where the law provided a public law basis, making possible to establish voluntarily cooperation bodies on a long term basis and vested with public powers: see France (Syndicats de communes – from 1890), Germany (Zweckverbände), Italy (consorzi)…• Success depends very much on the ability and will to cooperate: this was the case in France from the 19th century and helped overcome excessive municipal fragmentation: nowadays still about 14.000 syndicats de communes in all fields of municipal responsibility, although their number should diminish though rationalisation plans; much less successful in Italy or Spain• Basic condition for success: agree on goals, on the project, benefits for all stake-holders• The limit of cooperation: too much focused on individual services, does not help to work out a vision for the long term development of the communities; hence the need of a more comprehensive approach through territorial reform

7

2. Territorial reformA) Concept of territorial reform

• The territorial reform is a reform of the territorial pattern, especially at the municipal level, aimed at consolidating municipalities into larger unit

• Classical examples of territorial reforms were based on amalgamation; but this is not the only way: specific forms of cooperation can be used alternatively or in addition to amalgamation with the purpose to integrate further neighbour municipalities on the basis of a shared vision of the future of their territory

• A territorial reform at the municipal level has always impact on the intermediate level (borders, tasks, status… - see specifically the case of the UK)

B) Territorial reform through amalgamation

• For better service provision with units at the appropriate scale: Sweden, DK, Finland, Belgium, UK, more recently Latvia and Lithuania, Greece (2010)

• For better territorial planning and development: Germany, Netherlands, Greece (1997), • Keep a status for integrated communities as a condition of success (see Poland, Greece,

Bulgaria• Progressive reform (Germany, Netherlands, Finland) or one stroke reforms (UK, Belgium,

Sweden, Denmark)

8

C) Territorial reform through the development of multifunctional cooperation

* Basic features:- determine the cooperation area- the functions delegated to the inter-municipal body- a board of municipal representatives: exceptions = some case of direct

election (Germany for some bodies; France – law of December 2010)- costs shared by municipalities; exception = France, where “inter-

municipalities” have tax powers similar to those of municipalities

• Key relevant experiences:- France (see further)- Italy: mountaneous communities (recently removed) and unions of

municipalities- Netherlands: laws of 1994 and 2006, for urban areas- Germany: in several Länder, small municipalities were maintained, but

within obligatory joint authorities- Hungary: 166 “micro-regions” as cooperation areas, aimes at uniting all

municipalities of the areas for a number of tasks

9

3. Strengthening the intermediate level

•Tasks that cannot be fulfilled by individual municipalities are devolved to local government bodies of the upper tier: this has been the traditional function of the intermediate level of government in most European countries• But this can also hinder the decentralisation on the municipal level since it makes the reform of the municipal level less necessary:

- strong regions and weak municipalities: Italy, Spain- the raion in Russia, Ukraine and in a number for former Soviet republics

10

4. Specific issues of larger urban areas

•Urban development ignores administrative limits; urban areas always include numerous municipalities of different types, with different degrees of integration in the urban area; heterogeneous and conflict areas• Necessity to combine different scales, depending on the functions• Experiences:

- London: city government with strong boroughs- Paris: the come back of the central government- the failure of “città metropolitane” in Italia- the conflict regions / metropolitan areas in Spain and the restoring of the

“area metropolitana” de Barcelona (regional law of 2010)- Francfort: back from integration to cooperation (regional law of 2011)

11

IV. The case of France: territorial reform through multi-functional cooperation

1. Overview of the territorial organisation of France2. Inter-municipalities as a pragmatic way to territorial reform3. The reform of 2010

12

1. Overview of the territorial organisation of France

• France is a unitary State; its organisation is “decentralised”(C. art.1); the self government right of municipalities, départements and regions, as well as other local governments is guaranteed by the Constitution (art.72)• 3 levels of local government with equal constitutional status: leaving aside overseas local government bodies, France counts

- 36,600 municipalities, among which only 800 > 10,000 inhabitants, special status for Paris

- 96 départements- 21 regions + Corsica

•Local State authorities organised at the level of the region and of the département; the prefect has authority upon them, but financial administration, education and the application of the labour legislation• Large parts of these agencies were transferred under the authority of local government executive (départements and regions) as a consequence of the devolution of tasks upon these local government tiers; comprehensive reorganisation took place between 2007 and 2010• Prefects oversee local government bodies

13

2. Inter-municipalities as a pragmatic way to territorial reform

•The failure of the territorial reform through amalgamation: law of 1971• The development of cooperation as a “second best solution”: laws of 1966 and 1992• The new formula of cooperation compared to traditional syndicates:

- common features: public law corporation, board of representative of municipal councils, creation based on a (majority) agreement of municipalities

- new: tax power, a wide scope of tasks determined by the law, the powers given to the prefect of département, and the increased role of the elected commission of inter-municipal cooperation in each département, as a counterpart of the prefect to work out a plan for the development of intermunicipalities* Meaning of the word “inter-municipality”•The reform of 1999 and its success: starts the generalisation of the reform

- three levels of cooperation and of integration, with wide discretion left to local politicians: urban authorities, city authorities, inter-municipal communities

- options left to mayors as regards the functions to be delegated to the inter-municipality within a framework determined by the law;

- tax solidarity based on the business tax levied at the level of the urban area, and redistribution channels within the inter-municipality;

- financial incentives;- additional powers given to the prefects to implement the reform

14

15

•In 2011 (metropolitan territory + 4 DOM)

2,599 EPCI with tax powers, including 35,041 municipalities and 58.8 million inhab.

Among which:

-16 CU,

-191 CA,

-2,387 CC

1,320 EPCI with joint economic tax revenues, including18,212 municipalities and 46.4 million inhab.

There remain 1,639 municipalities outside of EPCI (5,2 million inhab.)

• In 2009, 29% of comprehensive municipal expenditures (> 24% of capital expenditures) were carried out by EPCI (but in 2007: 42% in CU, and 23.2% in CA).

16

3. The reform of 2010

A) Territorial reform• Complete the territorial reform through the generalisation and the rationalisation of

inter-municipalities: this will result in a two tier municipal government • No inter-municipality < 5,000 inhab.• Reduce the number of syndicates• Creation of a new type of inter-municipality: the “metropole”

B) Institutional reform• Direct election of municipal delegates in the boards of inter-municipalities• Mutualisation of services and personnel between inter-municipality and member

municipalities

C) Region and départements• The “territorial councillor”: one deputy for two councils• Regional schemes for the harmonisation of services and functions

D) The new regulation of the distribution of tasks • Départements and regions loose the general competence clause (indeed they keep it

to a large extent)• Legal functions are exclusive, but exceptions