decentralisation in ukraine_for despro_english_29.03.2013

Mapping decentralization reforms in Ukraine

Report on the results of the first project phase / 29.03.2013/

REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST PROJECT PHASE / 29.03.2013/..................1

DESPRO PROJECT MANAGER:..................................................................................................... 1

DESPRO PROJECT MANAGER: Oksana Garnets

Report prepared by:

V. Nanivska

A. Chemeris

V.Yatsyuk

І. Ratushnyak

O. Maksymova

N. Pavlyuk

A. Foros

1

Project description

The project “Decentralization support in Ukraine (hereinafter – DESPRO) under the auspices of the Swiss resource center and consultancies for development (Skat) plays a decisive role in the decentralization in Ukraine, supplying specific hand-on practical knowledge and skills needed for the efficient operation of the territorial communities and local self-governance bodies. In the post-totalitarian society, no one was in possession of practical understanding or skills, which have been eventually obtained due to study tours, organized by DESPRO with the goal of demonstrating the operation of democracy at the local levels to the Ukrainians. Thus, DESPRO ensured the materialization of the abstract notion of decentralization. DESPRO focused at specific practical activities, thus enabling the development of unique set of publications, which have become most popular and are widely used not only as handbooks, but also as most instrumental vade-mecums and guidelines for the local officials. DESPRO is obviously a successful project. Lamentably, the same cannot be said about the general situation with decentralization at the state’s level.

The new project “Mapping decentralization reforms in Ukraine”, initiated by DESPRO with the financial support from the Swiss agency for development and cooperation (SDC), differs essentially from all the earlier projects. It envisages the analysis of reforms aimed at decentralization in Ukraine and finding out why, despite huge effort and resources invested into decentralization over the recent 20 years, Ukraine ended up in situation, which is characterized by strengthened centralization, while the very notion of decentralization has acquired most negative connotation due to the failure of the respective reforms.

The new project is drafted as a whole cycle of the public policy. It covers the analysis of the policies, including the analysis of the gaps in planning and implementing the reforms aimed at decentralization in Ukraine as well as organization of the broad public campaign for the support in filling these gaps and introducing efficient reform.

This document reflects the the results of the first phase of the project, which included Comparative analysis of the Council of Europe’s recommendations and Ukrainian

strategic and normative/legal documents, devised after these recommendations have been passed;

Analysis of the history of the local self-governance from early soviet times till present;

Specifying of the main gaps in the reforming process; Proposals with respect to the further project steps, including relevant methods and

schedules.

2

Highlights

Decentralization has been the most important of reforms, which followed the democratic changes in Ukraine since 1991. The efforts and resources invested into the reforms were so huge, and the results of the reform so much anticipated because the “decentralization” was perceived in the post-totalitarian society in Ukraine as a synonym of “de-sovietization” and “freedom”.

Over the 20 years of independence, Ukraine has made significant steps in this direction. In 1997, it ratified the European Charter on local self-governance. As of today, over 3 thousand normative acts referring in some way to the “local self-governance” are in place; 700 legal acts address the issue of local self-governance. A large number of the Ukrainian NGOs specialize exclusively in the area of decentralization reforms. A number of associations, e.g. the Association of Ukrainian cities, the Association of the raion and oblast’ councils have been set up to support decentralization process. The technical assistance projects dealing with this issue over the years of 2004 – 2012 are estimated at over 60 million euro.

Following the ratification of the European Charter on local self-governance the Council of Europe became involved in all the initiatives addressing the local self-governance reform. Having analyzed the conformity of the concepts and draft laws on decentralization in Ukraine with the European requirements and standards, the Council of Europe has arrived at lamentable conclusions:

The Council of Europe’s recommendations are disregarded by Ukraine. The road map for decentralization, offered by the Council of Europe, has not been studied and failed to become the basis for the reform concept.

No uniform strategic document addressing the reform has been devised. The current legislative initiatives are neither coordinated with, nor linked to the reform concepts, nor aimed at achieving the reform goals.

The roles of specific bodies of power in the reform process are unclear. There is no administrative structure reflecting the responsibilities for the reform implementation.

The supervisory and control functions over the local self-governance bodies and local administrations’ operation are not defined and fail to meet the international standards.

Consultations with the stakeholders are substituted by sharing information with public at large, which precludes the devising of the uniform coordinated position or setting up the support groups for the reform implementation.

Most importantly, the functions of the state governance and local self-governance are not divided properly: the functions of the local state bodies of authority and those of the local self-governance bodies are not defined or separated. The councils

3

persist in performing the state functions vested in them by means of delegated competencies, while in fact these competencies should have been delegated to the state bodies of authority.

The authority of the local state administrations needs enhancing, their role and functions need cardinal revising.

The provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine still fail to meet the requirements of the European Charter on local self-governance, despite its peremptory ratification, which in fact makes the said Charter non-legitimate in Ukraine. In the process of reforming the system of local self-governance in Ukraine, no significant steps are possible without introducing systemic changes into the Constitution. Too detailed constitutional description of structures and mechanisms instead of principles practically preserves the existing system unchanged. The modernization of the Constitution itself shall become the first step in decentralization reforms.

So far, it remains unclear, why despite all the efforts and resources, the decentralization reform never happened. Lack of obvious objective reasons for Ukraine’s incapacity in introducing the decentralization reform called for the broader analysis of the political legacy inherited by the country.

The issue of “governmentalization” of the local councils of the people’s deputies acquired quite a novel interpretation in the light of analysis of soviet history with respect to the local self-governance.

For the first time the notion of “broad self-governance with due respect of decentralization principle” was quoted in the UPR Constitution of 1918.

After Lenin’s Constitution of 1919 was adopted the notions of both local self-governance and decentralization disappeared from usage until the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” was passed in 1990. The first Lenin’s decrees “All power to the councils [soviets]!” and “Land – to the peasants, factories – to the workers!” proclaimed the expropriation of the state power and private property. The Ukr.SSR Constitutions of the years 1919 and 1937 established the “Councils of the working people’s deputies” as the only bodies of the state power at all levels, while the Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1978 added to that legitimization of the hierarchic vertical of the councils united in a uniform rigid structure under the total political control of the respective CPSU bodies.

The Constitution of 1937: «Article 3. All the power in the Ukr.SSR belongs to the working people of cities and villages represented by the councils of the working people’s deputies. Article 72. The councils of the working people’s deputies. Are the bodies of the state power in the oblasts, districts, raions, cities, settlements, stanitsas and villages of the Ukr.SSR.”

4

The Constitution of 1978: «Article 125. The local councils of people’s deputies… implement the decisions of the higher state bodies, manage the operation of the lower councils of people’s deputies …»

The Law “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” passed on December 7, 1990, introduced the notion of the “local self-governance” for the first time since the UPR Constitution of 1918. This law in fact engendered functional dual governance, proclaiming the councils of people’s deputies the local self-governance bodies and state power bodies at the same time. The local self-governance bodies were granted the competencies, delegated by the state, with the due transfer of financial, material, technical and other resources.

Putting an end to the CPSU monopoly on power in 1990 for the moment transferred FULL state authority in the regions to the local self-governance. The power structure reeled, while the vertical of executive power was disrupted. All these development called for the new governance in the regions and for the setting up of the new vertical of executive power in lieu of the destroyed partisan vertical.

The further changes contributed to the permanent “tag of war” game between the state authorities and local self-government bodies (i.e. the full scope of political, administrative and financial capacity).

1992 – liquidation of the executive committees under the oblast and raion councils and setting up of the President of Ukraine representatives’ institute; restructuring former executive committees as local state administrations;

1994 – liquidation of local state administrations and restitution of the full-fledge regional self-governance by re-establishing the executive committees under the oblast and raion councils;

1995 – signing of the Constitutional Agreement – re-establishment of the local state administrations, liquidation of the executive committees under the oblast and raion councils;

1997– the first attempt of thorough administrative reform came to an end and was forgotten. The reason for that was that the State commission on administrative reform led by the first President of Ukraine Kravchuk prepared the next “tag-of-war” tournament under the slogan “ALL power to the councils” with traditional liquidation of the local state administrations. Then President Kuchma abstained from liquidating the state administrative executive vertical. This reform did not yet offer the separation of the functions between the state governance and local self-governance as well as the enhancement of the state power authority at the local level by building up its unprecedented democratic capacity.

2005 – second attempt at territorial and administrative reform led by Roman Bezsmertny collapsed with huge resonance. This time opponents, which organized public protests, included the leaders of the local power bodies, potential victims of the enlargement in territorial units. Official and public versions, however, as usual

5

blamed the retrogrades opposing progress and reforms. In fact, the initiative led by Roman Bezsmertny failed due to the lack of political knowledge. The reform, very democratic in its essence, was implemented by entirely totalitarian method, which was the only method known at the time. The concept of consultations with stakeholders was totally unknown. The Council of Europe still had not issued the recommendations promoting these consultations as the necessary tools in achieving political consensus in a sensitive issue of a new territorial structure.

Numerous normative and legal acts developed following the Law of Ukraine “On local self-governance” did not introduce, and, consequently, enforce the changes into the division of competencies between the local state administrations and local self-governance bodies. They had no significant impact on their structure and operation.

As of today nothing has changed – the functions of the state bodies and local self-governance bodies remain mixed up. The Lenin’s principle of “democracy = all power to the councils” still dominates Ukrainian mentality. Instead of separating functions and competencies between the state bodies and local self-governance bodies each coming reform only attempts to embrace the whole scope of authority by means of overpowering the executive committees.

Ukraine does not have a single concept, which would be acceptable both for the Parliament and for the President and government. That is why the decentralization reforms amount only to discussions around procedures and mechanisms, without addressing the issues of principles and foundations of local self-governance.

The Ukrainian bureaucrats have no idea of role, competencies and functions to be performed by the state power officials at the local levels, similar to prefects in France or voyevodas in Poland. Instead, there is a feeling of complete vacuum left by the elimination of the CPSU leading role in the vertical of governance. The group of interests, which is in power, i.e. the Presidential group, permanently tries to occupy this “empty space of power”.

Each time the political force representing the President, uses the local state administrations and local self-governance bodies in its competition for power, trying to get control over the the executive committees and leaving the opponent without any means or resources for performing its functions. There is no understanding of the fact that once the inherent functions of local self-government are strictly defined and state authority is delegated to the local state administrations, each of them would need its own administrative apparatus in order to perform its duties. The elected councils need their executive committees; local state administrations need their own administrative body, whatever its name might be.

Conclusions and recommendations

CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT

6

- currently Ukraine found itself in an extremely beneficial situation, which would ensure successful reform implementation – available political will, expressed in the Presidential speech at the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013, and in the reports of the Commissions in charge of the administrative and territorial structure and local self-governance of the Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine; available clear definition of the necessary changes – Ukraine just received the Concept for the Constitutional regulation of the local self-governance from the Council of Europe; crucial political need for achieving the tangible results and demonstrating decisive steps prior to May 2013 within the framework of getting ready to the signing of the Association Treaty with the European Union;

- Ukraine has enough reformers and clear understanding of the reforms’ goal;

- At the same time erroneous and detrimental belief that existing soviet practice in changes management, i.e. administrative-commanding way of making and enforcing decisions can be efficient at the background of devastated and dysfunctional administrative-commanding system, i.e. in the situation when political decisions of the leadership are not automatically translated into administrative actions of the subordinates, in the atmosphere of acute political and economic competition and freedom of speech, still persists in Ukraine;

- The democratic knowledge, skills and experience as well as the reforms management experience can come only from the technical assistance granted by the democratic countries;

- The reform can be implemented only on the basis of a public document defining policy, following public consultations with all the stakeholders in order to develop politically harmonized reforming plan, only if the charter of administrative liability at all levels of the state administration and local self-governance is devised with respect to the reform, only if the system of control over the executors of the reform is set up, only if a pilot project of the local self-governance capable of “standing on its own two legs” is launched;

- The aforementioned gaps and obstacles described by the Council of Europe’s experts in so much detail and specifically addressed by the President of Ukraine, i.e. the lack of public strategy, of understanding and support of the reform on behalf of public, absence of clear and transparent charter of administrative liability for the reform implementation, lack of systemic control over the executors of the reform – fall exclusively under the category of methods and ways of the reform implementation;

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES and aiming at eliminating the gaps identified in this study in decentralization reforms in Ukraine and ensuring the fulfillment of the intentions formulated by the President of Ukraine in his speech at the Council of Regions’ meeting,

7

WE RECOMMEND THAT DONORS support the implementation of the technical assistance projects, which stipulate:

The development of political document – the map of decentralization reform (policy mapping of reforms);

The overcoming of totalitarian model of informing the unidentified “ public at large” about the reforms, moving towards well-structured consultations with the stakeholders in order to come up with the socially and politically justified stand with respect to the reform and defining the support groups as well as opposition groups in reform implementation;

Carrying out a broad public policy campaign with respect to the reform; The implementation of the pilot model of the decentralized government capable of

“standing on its own two legs” at the local levels, with the participation of a local council and local state administration in compliance with the European principles and standards. Such projects will enable the setting up of a model for non-contradictory system of local governance as well as fulfilling the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

8

Council of Europe appraisal of the decentralization status in Ukraine

Decentralization and local self-governance reforms as a separate area of collaboration between the Council of Europe and Ukraine

Importance of decentralization on the path from totalitarian state towards democracy was recognized in the very first days of the Ukrainian independence. Over the next 20 years serious steps have been taken in this direction. As of today, over 3 thousand normative acts referring in some way to the “local self-governance” are in place; 700 legal acts address the issue of local self-governance.1 The Council of Europe and other international organizations provided detailed commentaries to each provision of the Ukrainian law and decentralization strategies with subsequent recommendations concerning necessary changes. A large number of the Ukrainian NGOs specialize exclusively in the area of decentralization reforms. A number of associations, e.g. the Association of Ukrainian cities, the Association of the raion and oblast’ councils have been set up to support decentralization process. The technical assistance projects dealing with this issue over the years of 2004 – 2012 are estimated at over 60 million euro. (See addenda). In particular, the Action Plan of the Council of Europe for the years 2011 – 2014 assigns funding at the amount of 3.3 million euro for the projects aimed at strengthening democracy at the local level, support for the local self-governance, enhancing the institutional capacity of the local bodies of authority and their associations stipulated by the European standards of efficient governance, ensuring active public participation and exercising of direct democracy. Despite all these efforts, the reform in fact came to a standstill after the passing of the Budget Code 2001, which introduced significant measures for budgetary decentralization. Currently Ukrainian experts see the decentralization process in Ukraine in most negative and pessimistic terms.

Over the last ten years the the Council of Europe has been involved in all the initiatives related to local self-governance reform. It provided estimates and recommendations for all these initiatives. The Council of Europe undertook the obligation to assist in the reforming process with the goal of bringing Ukrainian legislation, institutes of power and local self-governments into compliance with the requirements of the European Charter on local self-governance.

1 Concept for local self-governance reforming in Vinnitsa oblast council.– http://www.vinrada.gov.ua/rishennya_koordinaciynoi_radi.htm

9

Disappointment, misunderstanding and negative assessment manifested in the Council of Europe evaluation of its collaboration

with Ukraine

Analyzing the compliance of concepts and draft laws addressing decentralization in Ukraine with the European requirements and standards, the Council of Europe arrives at lamentable conclusions. The experts of the Council of Europe are having hard time trying to define the priorities of the Ukrainian power bodies.

“However, despite different documents on local government and territorial reform submitted to discussion during the last few months we do not really know what is the strategic orientation of the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine for the next future and what section of the central government has the lead to implement the political guidance spelled out in the political documents issued by the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”. 2

The European Charterer of local self-government was ratified by Ukraine on July 15, 1997 by the Law of Ukraine “On ratification of the European Charterer of local self-government” completely. The Council of Europe remarks that Ukraine in fact is violating its international obligations failing to bring its legislation into compliance with the European Charterer provisions.

According to Article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine conclusion of any international agreement, which conflicts, with the Constitution is possible only after the adoption of amendments to the Constitution. No analysis on the compliance of the provisions of the Charter with the Constitution was prepared and there are no conclusions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on this issue”. 3

“The requirements of the Charter stipulated by the articles 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 6.1, 8.1, 8.3 are not implemented entirely or partially in the Ukrainian constitution, law and practices. The current budgetary system does not comply with the requirements of article 9”.4

The essence of local self-governance is distorted even at the constitutional level.

«The Constitution of Ukraine conflicts with the provision 4.2.of the Charter under which local self government bodies are considered as politically independent when independently and under their responsibility key crucial local problems are identified and solved in the rapidly changing world; without such a provision local self government bodies shall carry out only the tasks assigned by the central authorities”.5

2 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation, 5 May 2012, р. 1

3 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation, 5 May 2012, р. 14 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self -

Government _2010 , 30 July, 2010 pр. 1 and 2.10

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Note-on-the-present-projects-on-local-government-reform-and-on-inter-municipal-co-operation.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Report-on-Compliance-of-the-Ukrainian-Legislation-with-the-Principles-of.pdf



The Council of Europe points out chaotic and internally uncoordinated nature of the Ukrainian law-making process, which is not aimed at achieving the reform goals.

«It seems extremely important to overcome the gaps between project prepared in different segments of the central government and to achieve more coordinated approach of the reform”.6

“For example the Draft Concept does not propose a version of reform implementation by way of inter-municipal cooperation, which is an option in the “political proposal” to it (p.8)”. 7

The Council of Europe does not understand why its very specific practical recommendations and proposals concerning further steps for reforms in the system of local governance and ways of overcoming existing problems are ignored by the Ukrainian party, are not reflected in the concepts and new legislative initiatives of the Ukrainian power and associations of the local self government.

„The Law „On the state civil service service”, signed by the President of Ukraine in 2012 does not take into account most of the CE recommendations so there has been no change to the basic concept of civil service. It is still a job-based civil service. No changes have been made to organizational structure”. 8

“Supervision of local self-government bodies which the draft tackles irrespectively of the continuous CE advice provided with regard to European standards in this area”.9

The Congress of local and regional authorities of the Council of Europe in its recommendation 102 (2001) regrets

a. That in the context of the centralized public administration system some Ukrainian political forces are still opposed to any reform involving decentralization of public powers on the basis of the subsidiarity principle Article 4.3 ECLSG);

b. Laws and [articles] of the Constitution regarding local and regional self-government are often unclear and badly implemented ;

c. That over the last two years the above- mentioned legislative deficit and disorder contributed in practice to create serious democratic as well as rule of law deficit which represents a worrying step back” .

5 CoE Report on Complian ce of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 56 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation, 5 May 2012, р. 6 7 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June

2012,12.06.2012, pp. 3-48 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012

8.06.2012, p. 29 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012 , 12.06.2012, p. 8

11

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Concept-of-the-Local-Self-Government-Reform-and-Territorial-Organisation-of-Power_June-2012.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-the-Local-Government-Service_2012.pdf






Unfortunately, in the 9 years following adoption of this recommendation almost none of its items have been implemented. 10

The Council of Europe expert conclusions sound like a cry of despair with regards to further development of reforms and expediency of the assistance.

„Despite numerous draft laws which have been prepared and discussed, very little changed. Until now none of the initiatives has been approved, the reform of local self-government remains postponed”.11

At this stage, we are not sure that all these contributions are striving for the same reform. We are not sure that the Draft Concept12is linked with draft law on amalgamation of the territorial communities of December 2011.We are even less sure whether the new draft to be prepared on the basis of the conclusions of the seminar of 26th April will be a contribution to the development of draft concept, or will sketch a different strategy, more short-term oriented, less attractive for territorial communities and as a whole less comprehensive. Lastly we are not sure whether the Draft Concept only is supporting the amalgamation track or is open to an option between amalgamation and institutional inter-municipal cooperation”. 13

Reform-related problems, identified by the Council of Europe

Analyzing the state of decentralization in Ukraine, the Council of Europe identified the following obstacle on the way of introducing the local self-government:

Excessive fragmentation at the first(municipal) tier of local government, Unclear definition of the first tier, Absence of real self-governance capacity at raion and oblast levels, відсутність Excessive centralization of management of services to the population, Lack of financial autonomy.”14

The Council of Europe points out weaknesses of the Draft concept of the reform of local self-government and territorial organization of power in Ukraine, proposed in 2012 by the Ministry of Regional development, constructions and housing and communal services of Ukraine as a fundamental strategic document for the reform.

„The main drawbacks of the draft concept are: 1) The description of local government functions;

10 CoE R eport on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 1211 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012, 12.06.2012, p. 212I.e. the Concept for local self fgovernment reform and territorial organization of power in Ukraine, drafted by the Ministry of regional development, construction and housing and communal economy of Ukraine, posted on site on May 4, 2012.13 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation, 5 May 2012, р. 1314 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-mun icipal co-operation , 5 May 2012, р. 11

12






2) The description of the respective functions and powers of the local state administrations and territorial bodies of executive power;

3) Supervision of local self government bodies”.15

Problem of separation of functions between the state bodies of power and local self-governments

The Council of Europe points out the importance of clear differentiation between the functions of the local state bodies and local self-governance bodies, definition of their competencies, and explains the guiding principles for separation of functions as well as the need for reducing the scope of delegated powers.

“As recognized in the Proposals, the review of results should result in a transfer of some tasks between state administrative bodies, while some tasks should be transferred from state bodies to self-government bodies.”16

„The functions which the Government of Ukraine deems necessary to keep as the state responsibility, can be carried out by the territorial bodies of central executive power and state administrations should be responsible for their implementation, while local self-government bodies must be responsible to the citizens for the performance of their own responsibilities”. 17

“The CE advice would be to limit the list of delegated competencies: the functions of local governments should be mainly their own tasks and powers. Long list of delegated competencies will blur the responsibilities of the state and local government, as well as accountability of the authorities in charge.”18

In the majority of cases related to its operation the executive committee acts not as a council body (with reference to article 26.15 of the law “On local self-governance in Ukraine” the “cancellation of the acts of executive bodies of the council which do not comply with the Constitution or the laws of Ukraine, other legal acts, decisions of the respective council, made within the framework of its authority”19

The issue of unclear role of the local state administrations

The Council of Europe draws attention to the need of cardinal revision of role and functions of the state power bodies at the local level.

„ The recommendations of CoE experts could be briefly summarized as follows:

15 CoE apprais al of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012 , 12.06.2012, p. 8

16 CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organisation of Power_2011, 20.06.2011, p. 217 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012 , 12.06.2012, pp. 11-1218 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and Territorial Organisation of Power_June 2012 , 12.06.2012, pp. 11-12

19 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 6 13





http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advise-on-the-Proposals-for-Improving-the-Territorial-Organisation-of-Power_2011.pdf


- The government should reconsider the territorial organization of the StateAdministrative bodies at the district and regional levels, and the distribution ofTasks among them, taking stock of the experience of other European countries andCoE recommendations- Perform the audit of state administrations and their current functions- Differentiate state administrations according to their functions and to how oftenTheir services are used by the citizens- Consider creating wider raions- Transfer the LSG functions from state administrations to LSG bodies

- Strengthen authority of the oblast state administrations” 20

In its recommendations to strengthen the authority of the local state administrations, the Council of Europe proposes the setting up of a representative system for local state authorities, similar to the institute of prefects in France.

The analysis of the present organization of the network of the State administrativebodies should be linked to the Decentralization Strategy, since the tasks considered to bedevolved upon local self-government bodies will have a strong impact on local bodies of thestate administration and, in particular, should determine transfers of personnel from the latterto local self-government bodies… The way to overcome this problem is the professionalization of the function: the heads of the local State administration bodies must be higher civil servants with a career. In France, the ENA did succeed in professionalizing the Prefect function since 1945”…21

“Prefects in France make up the administrative backbone of the Unitarian, democratic, decentralized state, some competencies of which are delegated to the local bodies of power. The main task of prefect who “implements the governmental decisions (Decree of March 10, 1982, art.1), consists in the realization of the national policy. The prefect’s duties include control over the legislative acts of the self-government bodies. Prefect is a direct represeпtative of the Prime Minister and each Departmental/Regional minister. The institute of prefect is a national tradition, as in France the nation was formed by the state. This structure makes necessary the presence of a representative in each territorial unit, whose role is to permanently safeguard the state sovereignty and observance of the laws, to realize public governance”.22

Lack of European standards for supervision and control over the local power bodies’ operation

The Council of Europe points out that the function of supervision and control over the local power bodies’ operation is not regulated and fails to meet the international standards.

20 CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial O rganisation of Power_2011

20.06.2011, p. 121 CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organisation of Power_2011, 20.06.2011, p. 222It takes 20 years to train a prefectНеобхідно 20 років, щоб підготувати префекта, 5.11.2007, p. 10, p. 3, p. 2, сp 9

14



“The specific laws on LSG bodies do not stipulate the special procedures for supervision. Supervision of LSG bodies’ activities is exercised by the state supervision bodies. In addition, as rule no special features of supervision of LSG bodies are stipulated.” 23

“Often in Ukrainian councils the head of an executive body department is not only the council deputy, but also a head of a certain specialized commission under the council, i.e. supervises his own activity”.24

Lack of coordination between the budget system and decentralization and local self-governance tasks

The CoE conclusions make it clear that budgetary decentralization in Ukraine is not based on the European principles and standards.

“The existing budgetary system does not comply with the requirements of article 9 of the European Charterer as a whole”. 25

The Budget code needs elaboration as the control over the accounts is not equal to the supervision over the local budgets’ expenditures”...26

Non-reformed civil service in the local self-governments

Analyzing the legislative regulation of the service in local self-government bodies, the Council of Europe uncovered non-compliance with the European Charter provisions.

„Articles 3 and 10 of the Law of Ukraine „On service in local self government bodies” include elected officials into the corpus include elected officials to the body of local power servants, It is contrary to the provisions of the European Charter of local self-government, which clearly define the difference between the officials of the local self-government bodies and elected officials (Art. 7 of the Charter)”. 27

According to the CoE conclusions, the legislative initiatives with respect to the reforms of service in the local self-government bodies, do not refer to the European principles and systemic mechanisms which would allow avoiding lack of professionalism, political prejudice and corruption among the the local self-government officials.


Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 324 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 825 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self -

Government _2010 , 30 July, 2010 рp. 1 and 12. 26 National Strategy (road map) for decentralization and local self government reform in Ukraine for 2010-2013, CoE document of 30.07.2010, p. 727 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2011, 20 July, 2011, p.2

15







„The new draft law on local government service fails to provide for the recruitment of the competent professional, to ensure political neutrality of public service and to combat corruption”ї.28

„There are two issues regarding the scope: The structure of the legal framework applicable to the local government service; The coverage of the draft law as regards categories of personnel and functions”.29

“The problem is that draft is not about a local government service, but about the organization of the local government service for each local government body; the draft sets common rules, but there is neither common organization, nor proper career path for local government service members”. 30

“No system of retraining and training of local self-government employees is established, either at the state level or at the level of LSG associations”. 31

“As to the labor remuneration too much discretion is given to authorities for awards, as is the case with the state civil service”. 32

«Incompatibility is reduced to incompatibility of offices of the elected representatives –to be a member of another council or hold a position of a city, settlement or village mayor, as well as be an employee of executive committee of “their own” council. The law does not prohibit a council member from working at the executive administration of the council”.33

Lack of public consultations with the stakeholders

The Council of Europe stresses the need for public consultations with the stakeholders in order to achieve agreement on political initiatives and points out that Ukrainian power and legislators ignore this inalienable stage of policy-forming cycle, substituting the consultations with the interest groups with public information, and disregarding the results of public discussion in strategic and normative/legal documents.

„Draft law „On amalgamation of territorial communities”: the schedule for the implementation of the reform has to be regulated by the law. Enough time and a deadline should be given at the local level in order to build political agreement on the new boundaries. The participation of existing local government councils and their association in the amalgamation process is not organized”. 34

28 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012, 8 June, 2012 p. 329CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012 , 8 June, 2012 p. 430 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012, 8 June, 2012 p. 231 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 832 ВCoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On the Local Government Service_2012, 8 June, 2012 p.. 433 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 834 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On Local Initiatives_2012, 13.03.2012, с. 2

16

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-Local-Initiatives_2012.pdf









“Article 7.4 of the Law of Ukraine “On associations of the local self government bodies” states “public authorities when taking a decision on local and regional development and when determining the main spheres of the state policy on local self-government cooperate with association on the basis stipulated by law” If the Charter stipulates all the issues concerning LSG bodies directly, the Law makes provisions only for the main spheres of state policy on LSG. In practice, even this law is not implemented: for example, LSG associations were not consulted when 2010 Budget Code was drafted and adopted”. 35

«CE recommendation: avoiding the repetition of the mistakes of the draft law of December 2011, adopted without consultations. Establishing“perspective schemes for the formation of territorial communities,” (PPFG) based on a consultation procedure each oblast”. ». 36

«The English «Local authorities shall be consulted» should be translated as “Local authorities shall be consulted, but not “informed”.37

The Council of Europe highlights serious discrepancies in the understanding of legal language with respect to decentralization and self-government.

“The concept of a territorial community makes no legal sense because the new entity is integrated into the legal sphere and this entity does not have the status of a legal entity and technically cannot hold it. Mention should also be made of the numerous un-constitutional and illegal “incorporated” communities when a settlement or a town is incorporated into a larger town/city and a citizen is deemed member of both communities, and can, therefore, elect two local councils, two mayors, and both the rights and responsibilities of these two authorities are not distributed by law or any by-law.”38

Lack of mechanisms of translating political decisions enacted by laws, into administrative procedures

The Council of Europe points out that Ukrainian law lacks mechanisms of translating political decisions enacted by laws, into practical actions.

„The Draft Law „On amalgamation of territorial communities is an important step to the reform of the first local government tier in Ukraine. The Draft Law “On local initiatives” is an attempt to regulate such an important instrument for citizens’ participation in local self-government issues as “local initiatives”. Due to the lack of procedure that would make respective legislation provisions operational, it is not


Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 736 Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inte r-municipal co-operation , 5 May 2012, р. 1. 437 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legi slation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 1038 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010, 30 July, 2010 р. 317








always possible to implement general provisions of amalgamation of territorial communities and local initiatives in practice”.39

Constitution of Ukraine modernization should become the first step in decentralization reform

The Council of Europe believes that appropriate amendments into the Fundamental Law of Ukraine should be the priority step in decentralization reforms.

«In the process of implementation of the reform of local self-government in Ukraine fundamental actions are not possible if the Constitution is not amended. The too detailed description in the Constitution of structures and mechanisms and the lack principles almost preserves the existing system. The Council of Europe therefore recommends that the Ukrainian authorities begin the process of modernizing the LSG provisions in the Constitution. It would be important to: hold the parliamentary Hearings on the current state of the implementation of the

European Charter of local self-government in Ukraine and its compliance with Ukrainian legislation; перейти до загальноєвропейської концепції самоврядування як права місцевих влад:

give all rights of local authorities to raion and oblast councils; implement in full the subsidiary principle; re-organize the system of relegating responsibilities/competencies; revise the budgetary system to ensure local self-government bodies have real

capacity to act autonomously and under their own responsibility; Enable the legislator to improve the system and avoid excessive details in the new

Constitution”.40

39 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine_On Local Initiatives_2012, 13.03.2012, p. 140 CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-

Government_2010

30 July 2010, р. 1218




Analysis of soviet legacy with respect to local self-governance

The Council of Europe dissatisfaction with the progress of Ukrainian decentralization reforms, persistent non-compliance with its recommendations, on the one hand, as well as indefatigable activity of their champions on the other, make it expedient to look for more serious causes of the failures instead of trying to attribute them to the “Ukrainian mentality” or the notion that “they don’t want it”.

Lack of any obvious objective reasons for Ukraine’s incapacity in introducing the decentralization reform called for the broader analysis of the political legacy inherited by the country.

The issue of “governmentalization” of the local councils of the people’s deputies acquired quite a novel interpretation in the light of analysis of soviet history with respect to the local self-governance.

Revolution in local self-governance at the time of the UPR and the Ukr.SSR

1918

The UPR Constitution of 1918 introduces the concept of local self-governance and decentralization principle.

«5. Without the violation of its single authority, the UPR grants its lands, volosts and communities the rights of broad self-governance under the decentralization principle».

1919

The first Lenin’s decrees “All power to the councils!”; “Factories – to the workers, land – to the peasants!” expropriated the state power and private property by the people, i.e. the bolsheviks’ power.

Under the Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1919 the Councils became the bodies of state power at the local level (i.e. in the villages and cities), and councils’ congresses and their executive committees – bodies of power in the volosts, districts and рprovinces. .

After Lenin’s Constitution of 1919 was passed, the notions of decentralization and local self-governance disappeared from usage until 1990, when the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” has been passed.

The rule of the councils was considered the most democratic achievement of the socialist society, dubbed “the rule of the people”, despite the fact that the councils were set up and governed exclusively by the communist party, which would not tolerate any opposition.

19

1937

Stalin’s Constitution of 1937 defined the councils of the working people’s deputies as the only bodies of the state power at all levels. The Constitution contained no reference to the monopolistic role of the communist party.

“Article 3. All power in the Ukr.SSR belongs to the working people of the cities and villages represented by the councils of the working people’s deputies.

Article 72. The councils of the working people’s deputies in oblasts, districts, raions, cities, settlements, stanitsas and villages of the Ukr.SSR are the bodies of the state power. “

1978

Constitution of Ukr. SSR of 1978 was based on the Constitution of 1937 and established the councils as the only system of the state power bodies. The ill-famed article 6, establishing the political monopoly of the communist party was introduced.

«Article 2. ALL power in the Ukr.SSR belongs to people. The people exercise the state power through the councils of the people’s deputies, which form the political foundation of the Ukr.SSR. All other state bodies are accountable and subordinate to the councils of the people’s deputies.

Article 6. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the leading and guiding force of the soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations.

Article 78. The councils of the people’s deputies – Supreme Rada of the Ukr.SSR, oblast, raion, district, city and settlement and village councils of people’s deputies form the comprehensive system of the state bodies of power.

Article 125. The local councils of the people’s deputies address all the issues of local significance…implement the decisions of the state bodies of the upper level, govern the operation of the councils of the people’s deputies of the lower level …»

The following laws were used as implementation tools in enforcing the Constitutional provisions:

«On local and district council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;

«On raion councils of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;

«On settlement council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;

«On village council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR»;

«On oblast’ council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR».

The executive vertical of the communist party (CC-oblast’committee-raion committee-city committee…) substitutes the state executive vertical. The councils of the people’s deputies are politically controlled by the respective CPSU departments. The councils are composed of people recommended by the party bodies. The list of the council members

20

compiled by the executive committees of the councils was approved by the party bodies. After the approval, the lists were submitted to the party organizations of the enterprises, organizations and institutions to nominate the approved individuals as candidates for the deputies’ positions at the staff meetings or the meetings of the residents of a given area. The candidates, nominated in such fashion, were “unanimously” supported by the voters. The attendance at the elections usually amounted to 99, 5 %.

The party bodies also recommended the quantitative composition of the councils, i.e. how many CPSU members, Komsomol members; non-partisan members, leader, party organizations’ secretaries, women, young people, state award winners etc. had to be elected.

The Constitution of 1978 defined the principle of the uniformity of the councils system exclusively as the bodies of the state authority – at the period the councils’ vertical was in operation. The operation of the councils at various levels was determined by specific laws establishing their functions and competencies.

The party principle of democratic centralism governed the relationship between the councils’ executive committees. At every level the institute of “curators”, i.e. the assigned officials, controlling the operation of the executive committees of the lower levels - was actively used.

The councils and their executive committees operate proceeding from the decisions of the CPSU and CP of Ukraine’s Congresses, plenums and meetings of the CC Bureau, oblast, and city and district party committees. The draft decisions prepared by the councils on important managerial and personnel issues are first approved by the respective party bodies. Before a council begins its session, the agenda and draft decisions are to be reviewed and approved by the council party group, composed of the deputies- communists, which accounted for over 50% of all members.

The structure and functioning of the executive committees’ departments of the councils was duplicated and controlled on the everyday basis by the officials of the respective party structures. The heads and their deputies, managers of the departments regularly prepared operational reports, which were made public at the meetings and plenums of the respective party bodies. If their operation was found wanting, they could be dismissed from office. If it happened, the possible discontent of the council was completely disregarded. The party decision was final and could not be appealed or changed.

Therefore, the Constitution of 1978 established the soviet power model, which negated the principle of division of authority. The councils, constitutionalized as the only body of the whole state power operated as a “working corporation”, ensuring the performance of legislative and executive functions.

This constitutional status of councils allowed their use as disguise of sorts, concealing the party dictatorship. Stalin addressed the issue, describing the communist parties as the core of power, guiding force in the state mechanism, while the councils were kept as transmission and levering devices, ensuring the unity of the party and the working people.

21

The Constitution of the Ukr.SSR with changes and amendments introduced by 24 Laws over the years 1989 – 1996 existed until June 28, 1996, when the Fundamental Law of independent Ukraine was passed. None of the aforementioned changes and amendments addressed the issue of the regional or local self-governance, despite the fact that on December 7, 1990 the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” was passed. Similarly, the articles regulating the operation of the new institutions of the Presidential representative and local state administrations, which appeared in Ukraine respectively since March 5, 1992 and April 14, 1992 under the law “On the representative of the President of Ukraine” and the Presidential Decree “On Provisions on the local state administration”, have not been introduced into Constitution.

The impact of democratic changes in the society on local self-governance development in Ukraine

1990 – 1992

First elections to the local councils of the people’s deputies on multi-partisan platform ( including Narodny Rukh, “Green party” etc), held on March 4, 1990, called for actions aimed at developing the new laws reflecting new, democratic principles in setting up the local self-governance bodies and their operation.

The Law of Ukraine “On introducing changes and amendments to the Constitution of the Ukr.SSR” of October 24, 1990, eliminated article 6 from the Constitution and terminated the CPSU monopoly to power. State, oblast, raion, city party units stopped their operation as well as their control and influence over the state bodies of power.

As opposed to other European countries, Ukraine had no lustrations of the persons who were active party functionaries. The carriers of the communist ideology, which would not accept the democratization of public life in Ukraine, constituted almost 50% or even more, in the Supreme Rada and local councils’ membership.

The sessions of the councils undergo democratization process. The agenda for the session is discussed through acute polemics between the democratically minded deputies and champions of the communist ideology. As a result, the councils procrastinated with decisions, which had a negative impact on the executive bodies’ operation. In many case the governmental crisis followed.

On December 7, 1990 the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-governance” was passed.

The Law revived the concept of the “local self-governance” first introduced by the UPR.

The soviet councils, which represented the only bodies of the state power under the Constitution of the Ukr.SSR, were proclaimed the bodies of the local self-governance.

«Article 1. The local self-governance in Ukraine is the territorial self-organization of citizens for independent resolution – directly or through the bodies elected by them – of

22

all the local issues within the framework of the Constitution of Ukraine, Ukrainian laws and their own financial and economic capacity…The bodies of local self-governance are represented by village, settlement and city councils of the people’s deputies. Article 2. The system of regional self-governance is represented by raion and oblast councils of the people’s deputies ».

After banishing the communist party monopoly on state power, the legislator passed this law to implement Lenin’s slogan “ALL power to the councils”. Before the Law was passed, the councils had only fictitious authority on paper, being just a “democratic coverage” for the communist party dictatorship.

With the passing of these two laws, the communist party rule collapsed, while the councils’ authority became real. They remained the only state power until 1992.

Although the law introduced the concept of “local self-governance” in fact, no one intended to implement that governance, because no one made differentiation between the notions of governance and state power. The struggle continued under the slogan “ALL power to the councils”.

This period is described as a failure to implement full-fledge local self-governance.

The councils failed in exercising “ALL power” (i.e. both governance and state power), because after Article 6 establishing the leading role of the communist party, was eliminated from the Constitution of the Ukr.SSR the state power structure swayed as the vertical of the communist executive power, which used to be the major axis for the whole operation of the councils, ceased to exist. Besides, the Law liquidated the so-called “Russian doll” – the vertical subordination of the councils.

Following the democratic elections the local councils themselves became the centers of the political struggle between parties – phenomenon new to Ukraine, which, due to lack of experience and weakness of the Ukrainian government, led to chaos in regions.

Therefore, the system of governance had to be re-established in the regions, as well as the building of the new vertical of the state executive power in lieu of the former party vertical. That is why a year after the first law on local self-governance has been passed; the need for essential changes in the system of governance in Ukraine became most crucial.

The Declaration on state sovereignty of Ukraine, adopted on July 16, 1990, proclaimed the division of power into three branches – legislative, executive and judicial – and provided main guidelines for all the future changes.

The real division of power started with the establishment of the office of the President of the Ukr.SSR by the Resolution of the Supreme Rada of the Ukr.SSR of June 21, 1991, which introduced the office of the President of Ukraine and by the Law of the Ukr.SSR “On introducing the office of the President of Ukraine and entering respective changes and amendments to the Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Ukr.SSR” of July 5, 1991.

After the President of Ukraine was elected by the people on December 1, 1991, the process of introducing changes and amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine started. The Constitution in force (1978 version with changes and amendments) established that

23

the President of Ukraine is the head of state and the head of the executive power in Ukraine. The model of presidential-parliamentary republic was introduced in Ukraine.

Building the new vertical of the state executive power to replace the destroyed party vertical

1992 – 1994

Unstable economic, social and political situation contributed to the establishment of the office of the President’s of Ukraine Representative, which should have ensured stability of the economic development of the country and provide for guidance in the economic operation in the regions by means of building a viable vertical President-Government-Regional executive administration bodies. The vertical should have replicated the French model of governance, stipulating stability of the state. Нестабільна економічна, соціальна і суспільно-політична ситуація сприяла введ

After the Law of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative “was enacted on March 5, 1992, the President acquired the executive vertical formed of the the President’s of Ukraine Representatives in the oblasts and regions. Although this newly formed vertical had to eliminate the soviet power model, in fact the former revived the latter model, under which the President’s of Ukraine Representative used to be the oblast party committee secretary, the oblast state administration equaled to the oblast party committee, while the heads of the executive committees of the village, settlement and city councils, still were held responsible for the performing of functions delegated to the as state functions.

“Article 1. The President’s of Ukraine Representative is the head of the local state administration in oblast, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of Kiev and Sebastopol..

Article 7. The President’s of Ukraine Representative promotes the development of local and regional self-government, supervises the operation of the local and regional self-government bodies…

the heads of the executive committees of the village, settlement and city councils, are responsible for the performing of duties delegated to the for implementing state functions.

Article 13. The President’s of Ukraine Representative forms the local state administration in the oblasts, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of Kiev and Sebastopol respectively”.

Many councils opposed the introduction of the institute of the President’s of Ukraine Representative. Under multi-partisan system adopted by all councils, the conflicts between the councils and administrations were unavoidable. Unfortunately, they were accounted for exclusively by poor personnel policy. Therefore, the new division of power into state and self-government never happened. The Presidential and parliamentary influence in the regions was weakening.

24

The Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-government” of March 26, 1992/new version of the Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self-government” of December 7, 1990, envisaged the delegation of some responsibilities of oblast and raion councils to the President’s of Ukraine Representative. At oblast and raion tiers, the councils of the people’s deputies were deprived of their own executive bodies. The self-government with its own executive body was left for territorial units only. Severe competition started between the then Supreme Rada speaker and the President of Ukraine.

The Decree of the President of Ukraine “On By-Laws on the local state administration” of April 14, 1992

«2. The President’s of Ukraine Representatives shall set up the state administrations for the oblast, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol, raion and city districts of Kiev and Sebastopol replacing the executive committees of respective councils of the people’s deputies and, therefore, putting the end to the executive committees’ operation”.

The Supreme Rada of Ukraine Resolution “On implementation and enforcement of the Law of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative “ stipulates that after establishing the state administrations, the property of the executive committees of oblasts and raions, as well as the property in communal ownership is transferred to the respective state administrations.

The process of the state administrations’ formation and liquidation of the regional self-government was complicated and allowed for different interpretations by various deputies. The change in the communal property owner was a most crucial issue. Eventually the confrontation between administrations and councils and their leaders was building up, disrupting stability in the regions. The initiated privatization process combined with the lack of effective control further deteriorated the process of regional governance and social stability.

All these issues became the substance for the acute debates between the Supreme Rada and the President of Ukraine. To combat the crisis, extraordinary elections were held, followed by the liquidation of the local state administrations.

Liquidation of the local state administrations.

ALL power to the councils

1994

In September 1993, the Supreme Rada passed a decision on extraordinary elections of the President and parliament. The President’s attempts to have some constitutional changes and power structure changes introduced via the Supreme Rada (specifically,

25

introducing the office of Vice-President as the head of the government) failed. Instead, on February 3, 1994 the Supreme Rada passed a Law of Ukraine “On forming local bodies of power and local self government”.

“Article 1. Local self-governments in Ukraine are represented by the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast councils. They are empowered with their own competencies within which they operate independently.

Oblast, raion, Kiev and Sebastopol city councils at the same time perform the functions of the state power bodies.

Article 3. The head of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast council is elected directly by the community. The head of the council by virtue of the office is the head of the executive committee of the respective council.

Article 8. After the deputies and heads of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast councils are elected and executive committees of the councils are set up, the Law of Ukraine “On the President’s of Ukraine Representative” becomes invalid.”

This Law alongside with the new elections to the local bodies of power:

Destroyed the vertical of the state executive power, having banned the institute of the President’s of Ukraine and local state administrations;

Established that the heads of the councils at all tiers are elected by the residents of the respective administrative and territorial units;

Reconstructed the councils’ executive committees to replace the state administrations in oblasts and raions.

Ukrainian experts assess these developments as the reconstruction of full-fledge self-governance.

The fear to lose control over the regions led to the decision of delegating the functions of the state power bodies to the oblast, raion and city councils of Kiev and Sebastopol.

The heads of oblast and raion councils enhanced their status, as they were elected not be the deputies, both by the voters directly. Becoming at the same time the heads of the executive committee empowered them with the whole scope of local authority.

Decision to restitute the full-fledge local government at the regional level and liquidation of the President’s of Ukraine Representative office at the local level engendered the feeling of weak central power among local elite, which deemed it incapable of effective management of regions. Thus the formation of regional elite, with its own regional policies, started.

Since June 1994, the state governance kept weakening due to separatist tendencies of some newly elected heads. The leftist forces in the Supreme Rada tried to re-animate the soviet model of power.

The Draft Law “On local councils of the people’s deputies, passed in the first reading, in fact deprived the President and Government of any levers of influence in regional policy, while re-creating the vertical of “democratic centralism” with all the councils

26

accountable to the Supreme Rada. However, the law was never enacted by the majority in Supreme Rada.

After elections of the deputies and heads of the local councils alongside with the elections of the President of Ukraine on June 26, 1994, the process of renovation of local self-government in the regions and liquidation of the local state administrations gained momentum.

2 days after the elections the Law of Ukraine “On amendments and changes to the Law of Ukraine “On forming local power bodies and local self governments”, introducing changes into Article 1 of the said law was passed on June 28, 1994.

«Article 1. … the heads of the village, settlement, raion, city, district and oblast councils and the executive committees headed by them perform the duties delegated to them as state executive power, under the order and framework established by the law”.

Delegating these functions to the councils resuscitated the soviet model, i.e. when councils were state bodies of power.

The newly elected President of Ukraine faced the situation when, being the head of the executive power, he had no influence or governance in regions. The governmental collapse followed – he had no representation in the regions, while the heads of oblast and raion councils were responsible only for performing the duties delegated to them as state executive power.

The exercising of ALL power by the councils is enhanced by the Presidential Decree “On ensuring the governing of the state executive power bodies at the local level” of August 6, 1994, which established that the duties, delegated to the councils, are the duties of the liquidated local state administrations”.

«2. Rule that prior to the passing of the relevant law, the duties, delegated to the executive bodies, are the duties established by the Provisions on the local state administration, approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine of July 24, 1992 …»

Thus, the competencies of the local state administrations once again are given to the executive committees, which were deprived of them in 1992.

The President of Ukraine ruled that in the performance of these functions, the heads of the oblast councils are responsible and accountable to him.The heads of the village, settlement; raion councils are accountable to the heads of the oblast councils, and, through them – to the President of Ukraine.

This Decree could not change the situation significantly, as the heads of the oblast, raion councils were elected to office by the population, and the President of Ukraine could neither dismiss nor govern them. The quest for the most efficient model of regional governance turned out as dramatic as over the years 1992 – 1993 and once again led to the confrontation between The President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada.

To resolve the situation in December 1994 the President submitted to the Supreme Rada the Draft Constitutional Law “On state power and local self government in Ukraine”.

27

After the 6 months of debates around this draft, the Constitutional Agreement was signed between the President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada. The Constitution of the Ukr.SSR (Ukraine) applied only when it did not contradict the said Agreement.

The new surge of state executive vertical re-construction by means of taking executive committees away from the self-governments

1995

On June 8, 1995, the Constitutional Agreement was signed between the President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada. This Agreement “On main principles of organization and functioning of the state power and local self government in Ukraine till the Constitution of Ukraine is adopted” was based on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On state power and local self government in Ukraine” of May 18, 1995.

The Constitutional Agreement

Re-constructed the state power vertical President-Government- oblast, raion, Kiev and Sebastopol city state administrations.

local self government bodies were divided into self-governed ( cities, settlements, villages) and representative (oblast and raion); these latter lost their executive committees;

the former executive committees of oblast and raion councils were replaced by the system of local state administrations vertically subordinate all the way up, to the President of Ukraine;

the head of a council and of the respective state administration was supposed to be one and the same person, elected by the whole population as the head of the council;

the Cabinet of Ministers acquired more power over the territories;

The state executive bodies were removed from the sphere of the Supreme Rada influence; similar situation was observed at oblast and raion levels.

«Article 46. The state executive bodies in oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol and raions ( apart from the city districts, with the exceptions of districts in Kiev and Sebastopol) are respectively oblasts’, Kiev and Sebastopol, raions’, cities’, district ( in Kiev and Sebastopol) state administrations, governed by the heads of these administrations.

Article 49. Local self-government bodies in the villages (village councils), settlements and cities are respectively village, settlement and city councils…

Article 53. Representative bodies in oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol and raions (apart from the city districts, with the exceptions of districts in Kiev and Sebastopol) are oblasts, Kiev and Sebastopol, raions, districts in Kiev and Sebastopol, councils.”

Under the Presidential Decree “On provisions on local state administration and provisions on raion, district (in Kiev and Sebastopol) state administration “ of August 21, 1995 and the Presidential Decree “On delegating the competencies of the state

28

executive power to the heads of village, settlement and city councils’ executive committees and to the executive committees” of December 30, 1995, the local state administrations acquired a range of competencies which, even in theory, cannot be delegated to the executive power, i.e. the authority to introduce changes into taxation system or impose new taxes. Moreover, on May 28, 1995 the Law of Ukraine “On budgetary system of Ukraine” established additional restrictions on the resources of the local councils, thus further debilitating local self-governments.

The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996 engendered confrontation between the local bodies of state executive power and local self-

government bodies

1996

The Constitutional process in Ukraine began with adoption of the Declaration on National Sovereignty of Ukraine on July 16, 1990, and lasted for almost six years. Several drafts for the new Constitution have been devised. Finally, on June 28, 1996 the Constitution of Ukraine was adopted.

“Article 7. Local self-government is recognized and guaranteed in Ukraine.

Article 140. Local self-government is the right of a territorial community – residents of a village, or voluntary amalgamation of several villages in a rural community, settlement or city – to resolve independently the issues of local importance within the framework of the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine.

Article 118. The executive power in oblasts and raions, cities of Kiev and Sebastopol is exercised by the local state administrations. “

Preparing the draft for the Constitution of Ukraine its authors failed to take into account the provisions of the European Charter of Local Government, the expediency of which was obvious. Consequently the Council of Europe would point it out many a time. The Constitution of Ukraine, in its definition of the term “Local self-government”, contradicts the European Charter of Local Government, as it does not provide for the rights of the people composing a territorial community, which should have the capacity of independent resolving of local issues bearing all the responsibility for that.

The Constitution of Ukraine, as well as other legal acts, restricts the right of territorial community to define the structural organization of their local self-government themselves. The central power rigidly regulates the requirements with respect to the executive committees, departments and offices of the local councils within the boundaries of standardized structure, recommended by the Government.

The constitutional model of the local self-government system brings forward confrontation within the system of the local self-government, as well as between the local self-government bodies and local state administrations, significantly deteriorates the quality of public service and leads to the aggravation of social and economic situation in the regions and in the whole country.

29

The efforts to unite the self-governance and state bodies at raion and oblast levels in a single governing mechanism led to the creation of dysfunctional, internally contradictory system of organization of power and accountability of the local self-government system.

This approach resulted from the absolute political ignorance with respect to the nature of democracy. The state executive vertical used to be communist party vertical in old times, therefore now it was treated as something illegal, illegitimate from the democratic point of view. Two concepts -“centralization” and “state executive vertical”-were perceived as undemocratic. The institute of “voyevodas” or “prefects” was unheard of, as well the concept that even democratic countries need to have efficient executive verticals in order to govern their states successfully. In the said democratic countries, the state executive verticals efficiently and corporately collaborate with the bodies of the local self-government. Meanwhile, Ukraine obstinately tries to implement Lenin’s principle “ALL power to the councils” believing it to be real democracy.

First attempt at administrative reform in Ukraine

1997 – 1999

Presidential Decree “On State Board for administrative reform in Ukraine” of July 7, 1997

Presidential Decree “On measures for the implementation of administrative reform in Ukraine” of July 22, 1998

The State Board composed of professionals, scholars, executive officials and local self-government representatives developed a draft Concept for administrative reform in Ukraine. The Concept clearly defines the administrative reform goal, its tasks and ways to achieve it. The content of the executive power reform at the local level as well as the essence of the local self-government reform, its stages and tools were described in sufficient detail. The Concept implementation had to become an important step in building efficient regional government based on the principles of European practices. However, the implementation caused certain problems. On July 15, 1997, the Supreme Rada of Ukraine ratified the European Charter of Local Government without preliminary notification. The authors of the Concept were forced to stick to Ukrainian tradition of strong regional executive power. The European experts were immediately alert.

The text of the Concept was never made public officially. The first attempt at comprehensive administrative reform died its natural death. The fact that the State Board for administrative reform led by the first President of Ukraine L.Kravchuk prepared another round of “tag-of-war” under the slogan “ALL power to the councils” using the liquidation of local state administrations as their method of choice, was offered as “official” reason for the reform failure. The next President, L.Kuchma, did not dare to ban the state administrative vertical. That reform did not yet propose the strengthening of the state authority at the local level by building totally new democratic capacity.

30

The earlier developments resulted in passing of two laws - the Law of Ukraine “On the local self-government in Ukraine” of May 25, 1997 and the Law of Ukraine “On local state administrations” of April 9, 1999, which later proved imperfect and contrary to the provisions of the European Charter of Local Government, and needed a lot of changes and amendments.

Second attempt at administrative reform in Ukraine

2005

The second attempt at territorial and administrative reform, started by the Government of Ukraine in 2005 under the leadership of Roman Bezsmertny, met with the most resonant failure. This time the heads of the local power bodies – the victims of the future enlargement of territorial units – acted as main opponents inciting public protest. However, the official and publicized version blamed the “retrogrades” – enemies of progress and reforms. In fact, the reformers, led by Roman Bezsmertny, were defeated due to the lack of political knowledge with respect to democracy. A very democratic reform was promoted by the most totalitarian method, the only method known at that time. No one had the slightest idea of consultations with the stakeholders. The Council of Europe has not yet provided recommendations on the expediency of such consultations as means of achieving political consensus in the sensitive issue of a new territorial structure.

Numerous normative and legal acts and concepts developed after the Law of Ukraine “On the local self-government” has been enacted, failed to introduce, and, consequently to implement the changes in dividing the competencies between the state power bodies and local self-governments. They had no significant impact on their either structure or scope of work.

31

Reform map structure

Analysis of all the policy elements in the reform process

1) Policy goals

Who defined the policy goals and how?

Are the policy goals linked to the priorities defined by the national policy and international obligations?

Are the policy goals related to achieving specific outcomes/results?

Are these goals realistic/feasible with respect to the available resources?

2) Issues to be resolved to the implementation of this policy

What are the target problems addressed by this policy?

What qualitative/quantitative indicators or statistic data reflecting the scope of a given problem are offered in the concept/strategy?

Is the list of regulatory acts with respect to a given issues quoted?

Have the causes of the problem (i.e. actions or lack of action which led to it) been analyzed

Are the institutions/officials responsible for resolving the problem identified?

Is the impact of the problem upon the various stakeholders’ interests appraised? Are the social/professional groups ( i.e. number of people) affected by the problem (positively or negatively), identified?

Have the analysis of potential institutions/officials/interest groups capable of resolving the problem, been carried out? If so, how can they do that?

3) Cost of inaction

Have the effects of non-resolved problem (qualitiative and quantitative) been analyzed while developing the concept?

Has the failure to implement reforms been analyzed?

Has any justification been offered on why this problem should be addressed immediately?

4) Solutions

Ways of resolving the problem with the use of existing strategies and concepts.

Arguments in favor of the selected way of resolving the problem.32

Proposed legislative changes.

Proposed institutional changes (i.e related to structures, procedures, standards)for the implementation of the chosen method. Пропоновані інституційні зміни (у структурах, процедурах, стандартах) для

Planned training to empower the executors of the decision with the necessary knowledge and skills

5) Stakeholders’ position

How will the new policy implementation affect the stakeholders?

How will various interests’ groups respond to the policy?

What interests’ groups will be “pro”?

Is there any plan for mobilizing the interests’ groups to support the policy?

Who will be “contra”?

Is there any plan for dealing with the policy opponents, information campaign including counter-arguments?

8)Action plan

Specific actions aimed at implementing each of strategic priorities in the new policy/

Human/material resources, needed for the policy implementation.

Indicators of success and criteria of quality assurance in the implementation of the plan, stipulated by the strategies.

Institutions/officials, responsible for the implementation of the actions, defined by the concepts/strategies.

Institutions/officials who would supervise the implementation of action plan.

Establishing penalties for failure to implement the action plan.

33

Conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions on the causes of misunderstanding with the Council of Europe and factors making the implementation of the tasks of local

self government reform, formulated by the President of Ukraine in his speech at the meeting of the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013,

impossible

Comparison of the Council of Europe recommendations with the Ukrainian history of decentralization demonstrates deep misunderstanding as to the very essence of the decentralization. The Ukrainian sources traditionally refer not to decentralization, but to the local self-governance exclusively.

The decentralization of powers means the reduction in the scope of central competencies and their delegation to the local level by two ways – either by transfer to self government bodies or by changing the competencies of the local state vertical bodies.

The self-governance for us, the Ukrainians, is tantamount to the familiar slogan “ALL power to the councils. In fact, the self-governance is only part, one “leg” of the local governance. The other “leg” is represented by the local state vertical bodies.

The so-called reforms, on close inspection turn out to be futile efforts to rebuild the soviet “democratic centralism”: strong central authority with active masses at the local level.

Futility of these efforts is explained by unconscious attempts to reconstruct the familiar soviet models of the state governance, i.e. granting the functions of the state executive power to the local (regional) councils. Not a single reform proposed division, separation of the local self-government from the state executive power. All changes and reforms were aimed at transferring the whole power to the local level; inevitably they ended up with conflicts and deprivation of any power for the benefit of the state administrative vertical.

The Council of Europe experts are fed up with the amazing Ukrainian obstinacy and ability of complicating the simplest truths. They cannot imagine that we, Ukrainians, do not understand, what the Council of Europe wants from us, asking why we do not have a strategy for decentralization reform. Obviously, we have dozens Concepts, the President’s of Ukraine Program for Reforms is in place, so why cannot they be used a strategies?

We, Ukrainians cannot comprehend why our public councils, regular meetings in the communities do not satisfy Europeans who persist in recommending consultations with the stakeholders “to achieve political consensus in reform provisions”. Why do they believe that our public councils and regular meetings in the communities cannot provide for it?

34

Why Europeans are not happy with our numerous scientifically justified divisions of functions? Why do they think that the planning of competencies in our concepts and drafts is extremely complicated?

Why the Council of Europe does not like our control system? They insist on European standards? What are the European standards with respect to control?

The Council of Europe does not know that lack of the European standards does not mean lack of any standards whatsoever. We have the standards we use. They are soviet standards. They were very instrumental in the totalitarian administrative-commanding state.

The tragedy of our reforms is that all the soviet standards use language very akin to democratic terminology. They are fakes, poisoned mushrooms which look like the good ones, or even better. They are dysfunctional, deficient in the multi-partisan system and competition between the private owners.

Lack of democratic knowledge and experience does not mean that we have no wealth of knowledge and experience. On the contrary, we have abundance of our own, i.e. soviet experience. It is not a crime, not our dumbness, not outlandish Ukrainian mentality – it is a historic phenomenon. In order to master new knowledge we have to understand properly the knowledge we already possess, i.e. how totalitarian control is different from the democratic control, how scientifically-looking concept differs from a concept, why public councils are incapable of ensuring political consensus in developing position, while consultations with stakeholders can do it.

Recommendations

CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT

- currently Ukraine found itself in an extremely beneficial situation, which would ensure successful reform implementation – available political will, expressed in the Presidential speech at the Council of Regions on March 21, 2013, and in the reports of the Commissions in charge of the administrative and territorial structure and local self-governance of the Constitutional Assembly of Ukraine; available clear definition of the necessary changes – Ukraine just received the Concept for the Constitutional regulation of the local self-governance from the Council of Europe; crucial political need for achieving the tangible results and demonstrating decisive steps prior to May 2013 within the framework of getting ready to the signing of the Association Treaty with the European Union;

- Ukraine has enough reformers and clear understanding of the reforms’ goal;

35

- At the same time erroneous and detrimental belief that existing soviet practice in changes management, i.e. administrative-commanding way of making and enforcing decisions can be efficient at the background of devastated and dysfunctional administrative-commanding system, i.e. in the situation when political decisions of the leadership are not automatically translated into administrative actions of the subordinates, in the atmosphere of acute political and economic competition and freedom of speech, still persists in Ukraine;

- The democratic knowledge, skills and experience as well as the reforms management experience can come only from the technical assistance granted by the democratic countries;

- The reform can be implemented only on the basis of a public document defining policy, following public consultations with all the stakeholders in order to develop politically harmonized reforming plan, only if the charter of administrative liability at all levels of the state administration and local self-governance is devised with respect to the reform, only if the system of control over the executors of the reform is set up, only if a pilot project of the local self-governance capable of “standing on its own two legs” is launched;

- The aforementioned gaps and obstacles described by the Council of Europe’s experts in so much detail and specifically addressed by the President of Ukraine, i.e. the lack of public strategy, of understanding and support of the reform on behalf of public, absence of clear and transparent charter of administrative liability for the reform implementation, lack of systemic control over the executors of the reform – fall exclusively under the category of methods and ways of the reform implementation;

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES and aiming at eliminating the gaps identified in this study in decentralization reforms in Ukraine and ensuring the fulfillment of the intentions formulated by the President of Ukraine in his speech at the Council of Regions’ meeting,

WE RECOMMEND THAT DONORS support the implementation of the technical assistance projects, which stipulate:

The development of political document – the map of decentralization reform (policy mapping of reforms);

The overcoming of totalitarian model of informing the unidentified “ public at large” about the reforms, moving towards well-structured consultations with the stakeholders in order to come up with the socially and politically justified stand with respect to the reform and defining the support groups as well as opposition groups in reform implementation;

Carrying out a broad public policy campaign with respect to the reform; The implementation of the pilot model of the decentralized government capable of

“standing on its own two legs” at the local levels, with the participation of a local

36

council and local state administration in compliance with the European principles and standards. Such projects will enable the setting up of a model for non-contradictory system of local governance as well as fulfilling the Council of Europe’s recommendations.

Schedule for the proposed project

Project components Implementation timeframe

1. Public document on state decentralization policy

1.1. Database of normative documents 6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.2. Database of political documents 6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.3. Database of the state bodies responsible for decentralization reform

6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.4. Database of self-government bodies responsible for decentralization reform

6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.5. Database of international organizations supporting and implementing decentralization projects

6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.6. Database of all decentralization projects 6.05. – 31.05.2013

1.7. Studying Ukrainian experts’ opinion on decentralization reforms

20.05. – 07.06.2013

1.8. Analysis of international recommendations and conclusions with respect to decentralization reforms

20.05. – 07.06.2013

1.9. First draft of the public document developed on the basis of respective methodology

27.05. – 14.06.2013

1.10. Discussion over the first draft of public document on decentralization policy

17.06. – 05.07.2013

1.11. Introducing changes and commentaries 1.07. – 13.07.2013

1.12. Devising second draft of public document on decentralization policy

8.07. – 26.07.2013

1.13. Discussion over the second draft of public document on decentralization policy with all the stakeholders

9.09. – 08.11.2013



37

2. Public consultations and public campaighn

2.1 Identifying stakeholders 01.08. – 23.08.2013

2.2. Schedule of consultations with the stakeholders 19.08. – 30.08.2013

2.3. List of issues offered for consultations 19.08. – 6.09.2013

2.4. Carrying out consultations in the selected regions 9.09. – 8.11.2013

2.5. Processing of the consultations’ results 16.09. – 15.11.2013

2.6. Presentation of the results at public events, in Parliament and Governmental structures

9.12.2013 – 24.04.2014

3. Pilot model of decentralized local government

3.1. Devising model concept 15.07. – 13.09.2013

3.2. Identifying participants 15.07. – 13.09.2013

3.3. Questionnaire for the interview 1.08. – 13.09.2013

3.4. Conducting the interviews. Discussing the model concept

16.09. – 8.11.2013

3.5. Processing the results of the interviews 23.09. – 15.11.2013

3.6. Familiarization with the international expertise. Sharing best practices

21.10. – 27.12.2013

3.7. Introducing changes and commentaries to the model concept

11.11. – 27.12.2013

3.8. Devising the administrative responsibility map 2.12.2013 – 17.01.2014

3.9. Formulating reform-related changes to the by-laws of the governing bodies and job instructions for the officials

16.12.2013 – 24.01.2014

3.10. Discussion with the stakeholders over the needed changes

27.01. – 28.02.2014

3.11. Compiling final document describing the decentralized governance model

24.02. – 20.03.2014

3.12. Presentation of the results at public events, in Parliament and Governmental structures

16.03. – 24.04.2014

38

METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Methods of analyzing reform gaps

Approach to the gaps’ analysis

From its very first steps, the Ukrainian self-governance has been implemented without clear strategy of development. The proclaimed policy aimed at reforming the executive power and local self government bodies is missing in Ukraine, and the best reform models are still to be chosen. Ukraine failed to meet its obligations to the Council of Europe with respect to the full-scope implementation of the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self Government.

The international partners of Ukraine, first of all the European Union and its member countries, as well as other countries with highly developed democracy constantly provide assistance in the efforts to develop and implement the reform targeted at decentralization and local self governance. This support comes in different forms and is provided both through political dialogue (official commentaries, conclusions, recommendations prepared by competent bodies, first of all, by the Council of Europe) and within the framework of the technical assistance projects ( analysis, consultations, sharing of best practices, developing draft laws etc). Alongside with the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self Government, the outcomes of this support define organizational, procedural and substantial framework for this reform.

It gives the opportunity of comparing the key aspects of this framework with the respective characteristics of the current situation in Ukraine in order to identify existing discrepancies in the area of decentralization and local self governance and define the ways and steps to overcome them.

The analysis of the discrepancies in the reforming process covers two areas:

organizational (procedural), which defines the level of compliance with the principles and procedure of democratic governance in devising, planning and implementing the reform;

substantial, which defines the level of compliance of the documents’ and activities’ content with the proposed conclusions and recommendations, as well as with the results of the research containing the justification for these conclusions and recommendations.

These two aspects are taken into account in the analysis criteria offered below.

The following information sources are used for the gaps’ analysis:

40

official documents ( laws and regulatory acts, acts issued by the President of Ukraine and Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, official drafts, specifically, concepts, strategies, programs, plans etc);

official information and data ( statistics, descriptive and financial reports, monitoring and evaluation results);

stakeholders’ opinions and assessments (i.e. of acting and former officials of the central and local power bodies, international structures and organizations, Ukrainian and foreign experts and organizations), reflected in the relevant reports, studies and other materials, as well as those collected in the course of the interviews,focus-groups etc.

Procedure for the gaps’ analysis

Three main areas for developing, planning and implementing the reform have been defined:

legislative: normative support for the new concepts, principles, rules and mechanisms in the state legislation;

institutional: bringing the institutional basis into compliance with the new legal norms; ensuring the performance of the new tasks and functions;

budgetary: providing budget funding in the necessary amount the institutions.

The gap analysis in the reforming process is aimed at identifying the needs of the legislative, institutional and budgetary spheres, in the regional policy and local self-government areas with respect to the need for decentralization and reforming of its key components.

For the sake of this study, the gap analysis procedure will include three stages:

I. Compiling the list of the reforms’ goals and tasks

This list is compiled with due consideration of all the priority areas and tasks of the decentralization reform taken from the following sources:

The European Charter of Local Self Government;

Documents regulating the collaboration between Ukraine and the Council of Europe;

Official conclusions and recommendations of the Council of Europe in various aspects of decentralization reform in Ukraine.

Results of the research carried out by the Ukrainian and international organizations and experts can be also used.

41

After the detailed analysis of all existing obligations, conclusions and recommendations, they are to be compiled into a uniform list of reform tasks and goals. It is expedient to group together tasks and goals addressing the same function or aspect of the state policy in a given area, as it will allow to reduce their number and avoid duplication.

It should be kept in mind that the said obligations, conclusions and recommendations do not need to cover all the aspects of the state policy on decentralization. In other words, their formal implementation may not be enough to implement actual comprehensive reform. The list should be analyzed in terms of its accuracy and thoroughness.

Product: the list of the reform tasks and goals.

II. Evaluation of compliance of the available normative and institutional basis and activities with the defined tasks and goals of the reform.

After the list of the decentralization reform tasks and goals is compiled, the analysis of the relevance of the available normative and institutional basis, as well as the stage of operation, to these tasks and goals tasks and goals is needed. Each goal and task should be assessed in terms of the stage of its readiness de-jure, i.e. from the point of view of legislative support, and de-facto, i.e. from the point of view of law application, institutional provisions and actual deeds.

The stage of implementation of each of the tasks and goals is defined for two stages:

Development and planning;

Implementation.

The tasks and goals can be assessed as implemented, not implemented or partially implemented( or implemented with certain restrictions or reservations). If they are only partially implemented, the terms of full implementations should be clearly defined.

The status of each goal and task is checked against a set of criteria for good governance, in the area of development, planning and implementation of each of the priority areas of the reform.

1. Development and planning

a. Normative and legal support for development and planning of the reform. Criteria:

accuracy,

thoroughness,

harmonization with the forecasting documents (long-term, mid-term, branch and inter-branch documents);

42

connection to other program documents (long-term, mid-term, branch and inter-branch documents);

defining patterns and standards of quality for development and planning documents;

mechanisms of reflecting the reform in program documents of the bodies in charge of the reform implementation, program documents of regional and local level, annual programs and plans, budgets of all levels.

b. Information-methodological support. Criteria:

Availability of methodology for development and planning of the reform, examples and best practices; quality materials, if available;

Official document defining the decentralization policy and local self government reform (description of the situation, problem analysis,causes, goals, possible actions, evaluation and justification of the best method, way of its implementation);

If relevant – coherence of this document to conclusions and recommendations and their justification;

Forecast documents on regional and local development, reflecting this issue in other official program documents;

Results of the earlier state policy evaluation, if possible – with qualitative assessment of this evaluation;

Statistical structure covering all the aspects of the problem.

c. Institutional support. Criteria:

Existence of a uniform body in complete charge of the development and planning of the reform;

Empowering this body with sufficient competencies needed for the development, coordination and implementation of the reform;

Defining the structure of responsibilities for all the structural units and officials);

Analysis of co-executors: responsibilities, competencies, delegating;

Personnel, material, technical and financial support in development, planning and implementation of the reform,

Efficient mechanism for the coordination of the development, planning and implementation of the reform.

43

d. Openness and inclusiveness of development, planning and implementation of the reform. Criteria:

Is stakeholders’ participation envisaged for all the stages of development, planning and implementation of the reform;

How adequate and efficient are the requirements and mechanisms for involving stakeholders, interacting with them and taking their conclusions into consideration.

e. Adherence to the existing procedure for the development and planning of the reform. Criteria:

Taking all the planned steps;

Quality of the former activity;

Quality of the interim and final products.

f. Reform reflection in other program documents. Criteria:

Adherence to the requirements,

Quality of information describing the reform.

2. Reform implementation stage (if the actual implementation of certain goal or performance of certain task is already in place)

a. Quality analysis for annual and departmental plans for the implementation of the reform at the central and regional (local) levels.

b. Analysis of reform presence in annual budgets of the respective levels.

c. Analysis of the content of the reform implementation.

d. Analysis of the reporting system, monitoring and control of the implementation of the reform;

Availability of qualitative and quantitative indicators of all the levels of the reform implementation (products, outcomes, impact),

Correspondence of the actions, goals and indicators to SMART criteria,

Mechanisms for reporting and control over reports;

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms;

Response (feed-back) mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation.

3. Current situation analysis.

a. Analysis of the current programs’ content: 44

Compliance with the conclusions and recommendations of the Council of Europe

Justification,

Thoroughness,

Consideration of the stakeholders’ position,

Consideration of the evaluation results with respect to the earlier policies, in particular, the reforming attempts.

b. Reform reflection in the annual and departmental plans, budgets and cost estimates at the central and regional (local) levels.

c. Use of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

d. Harmonization of action, horizontal and vertical communication on reform implementation.

Product: report on correspondence of the current situation to the tasks and goals of the reform.

III. Identifying the actions to be taken in this sector to meet the tasks and goals of the reform

Results of this analysis will allow identifying the range of actions to be taken in this sector to meet the tasks and goals of the reform. The specific list will be compiled for each task and goal, which are not yet implemented or implemented partially. The actions in this list should meet the following requirements:

Strict time-frame for the implementation, i.e. an action cannot be permanent or indefinite time-wise;

Clearly defined final product, i.e. each action should bring specific change in the sector;

Clearly defined requirement or goal to be implemented and steps which will lead to it.

Product: list of actions to be taken to meet reform goals and tasks.

45

Public campaigning methodology

Approach to public campaigning

Public policy means the technology of making and approving the decisions with respect to the state policy, used by all the state bodies of power in the countries with high level of democracy in order to resolve the tasks they are facing. Its characteristic features include:

The use of instruments enabling taking into consideration the interests of various social groups;

The use of public consultations; procedures;

Adherence to the standards and formats accepted by the international community.

Public policy campaign is to be treated as a technology, as it stipulates

Breaking up the process of devising, approving and implementation of the political decisions into stages;

Specific algorithm for each stage;

Standard procedures and formats for the whole process and its separate stages.

The policy development process (devising, approving and implementation of the political decisions) includes the following inter-related stages:

Defining the problem/the agenda.

Coming up with the different scenarios for the problem solution/formulating various policies.

Choosing the best scenario for the problem solution/ policy option.

Devising the strategy for the implementation of the chosen scenario for the problem solution/drafting policy.

Implementation of the scenario/of policy and monitoring.

Evaluation of the policy results.

Public policy technology ensures the high quality of the political decision if all the procedures are followed in compliance with the standards and all the products are presented in the required format. Technology does not differentiate between principal and secondary standards, that’s why high quality can be achieved only if all the standards are adhered to in full scope.

Comprehensive and full-fledge public policy campaigns are the means ensuring systemic and focused process of changes and efficient setting up of the democratic institutes into

46

the public life within the framework which should cover the whole set of changes - from identifying the social problems to implementing political decisions, assessing the impacts and respective changes in the law, institutions etc.

Generally the public campaign includes the following stages:

Drafting technical task and planning public policy campaign

Organizing and conducting policy research

Organizing and conducting public information campaign and consultations with the stakeholders

Developing and substantiating the action plan (draft political decision)

Decisions’ implementation

Below we offer the methodology for the two crucial and most stages, i.e. policy research and consultations with the stakeholders.

Policy research

Organizing and conducting analytical research with analytical study on public policy as its final product is the most important component of public policy campaigns.

Analytical research within the framework of the public policy campaign is aimed at providing analysis of the power bodies’ policy and envisage:

Identifying and analyzing the problem which needs resolving and its causes;

Evaluating the power bodies’ policy with respect to this problem;

Identifying and assessing possible scenarios for the problem solution;

Devising recommendations for the solution;

Assessing potential consequences, obstacles and resources needed for the implementation of the recommendations.

As state power bodies and NGOs both participate in the process of drafting and approving decisions on state policy, all the analytical documents used as guidance in these processes in the majority of countries with highly developed democracy, can be divided into three groups:

Analytical documents of the power bodies for internal use only. These documents are drafted by the authorities in preparing and coordinating their decision with other power bodies. (e.g. by the ministries, documents to be submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers etc).

47

Analytical documents of the power bodies for external use. These documents are drafted by the authorities for consultations and informing the stakeholders on current political issues.

Analytical documents of the non-governmental organizations. These documents are drafted by the NGOs(analytical centers, scientific research institutions etc) to analyze current political problems and prepare independent recommendations on their solution.

Main types of public policy analytical documents

Type of document Communication goal

Analytical documents of the power bodies for internal use

Briefing Note Draw attention of the leaders of a Ministry, Stage Department, committee etc.to the problem at hand and offer the ways of resolving it

Departmental Policy Papers

Provide the power bodies’ leadership with the results of the analysis of needs/capacities, offer the ways of resolving the problems and recommendations on policy issues

Corporate Policy Papers Provide the Cabinet of Ministers with the results of the analysis of needs/capacities, offer the ways of resolving the problems and recommendations on policy issues

Analytical documents of the power bodies for external use

Green Paper Assist the leadership of the bodies of authority to draw public attention to the problems or new opportunities and seek advice and proposals from the public

White Paper Assist the leadership of the bodies of authority to inform the public on policy, introduced in response to the needs or new opportunities, learn about public response

Policy Statement Assist the leadership of the bodies of authority to inform stakeholders on policy, introduced in response to the needs or new opportunities

Analytical documents of the non-governmental organizations

Research proposal Provide the customer with arguments in favor of policy research with the description of its conducting

Policy analysis paper Provide the customer or the decision-maker with convincing and exhaustive arguments on resolving the

48

current policy problems

It is noteworthy that the “Green papers” in the countries of highly developed democracy are prepared by the independent analytical centers on the request of the authorities, while “White papers” are prepared by the authorities with the help of analytical centers’ experts. The authorities present both green and white papers to the stakeholders and discuss their main provisions, thus laying foundations for the public consultations. This process is an inalienable part of the decision-making in the democratic countries.

Usually the research process consists of three stages:

Data collection (obtaining necessary information);

Data analysis ( organizing the information, determining its significance and content);

Data assessment (defining the conclusions on the basis of the analyzed information).

The research schedule shall clearly define:

When the research starts;

When the research main stages start and finish;

When interim and conclusive reports on the process and results of the research are submitted;

When any special actions are taking place (communicative, investigative etc);

When the research is completed.

According to the types of activities the following components of political analysis can be defined:

Devising technical tasks for policy research;

Setting up a task force for the preparation of the analytical paper;

Setting up the groups of the external experts.

Defining all the stakeholders.

Drafting main clauses of the analytical paper and discussing them with the task force members.

Preparing interim version of the analytical paper (“Green paper”).

Discussions and consultations with external experts with regards to the interim version.

49

Summarizing the commentaries and remarks made by the external experts and introducing changes to the interim version of the analytical paper.

Sending the interim version of the analytical paper to the stakeholders for their reference.

Organizing and conducting public discussions with the stakeholders concerning main provisions of the interim version of the analytical paper.

Summarizing the commentaries and remarks offered in the course of public discussions and introducing changes to the interim version of the analytical paper.

Devising the final version of the analytical paper analytical paper (“Whitepaper”).

Discussions and consultations with external experts with regards to the final version.

Summarizing the commentaries and remarks made by the external experts and introducing changes to the final version of the analytical paper.

Sending the final version of the analytical paper to the stakeholders for their reference.

Organizing and conducting public discussions with the stakeholders concerning main provisions of the final version of the analytical paper.

Summarizing the commentaries and remarks offered in the course of public discussions and introducing changes to the final version of the analytical paper.

Summarizing the research results and editing them in the form of analytical paper on policy.

The goal of the policy analysis summarized in the aforementioned paper is providing convincing and exhaustive arguments for the substantiation of the recommendations, contained in it, on solving the current problems. Therefore, the document will become instrumental in making and passing decisions and in calling target audience to action.

The structure for the policy analysis paper

List of content of the document

Document summary

Introduction

1. Analysis of the problem and its causes

1.1. Problem characteristics

1.2. Problem

50

1.3. What caused the problem?

1.4. Stakeholders

1.5. Consequences of the problem (price of inertia)

2. Assessment of the policy addressing this problem

3. Analysis of possible scenarios for problem solving

4. Recommendations for the problem solving

5. Implementation of the recommendations for the problem solving

Bibliography

Addenda

List of contents

List of contents reflects the general structure of a document, which consists of the set of titles and subtitles showing the document’s organization and illustrating main chapters and sub-chapters. The list of contents helps the reader to get the general overview of the paper for better understanding of its main provisions and goals.

Document summary

This section offers a digest of all the main parts and provisions of the paper (its goal, definition of the problem and its causes, scenarios for potential solving of the problem, conclusions and recommendations). Its main task is providing the reader with the relevant information without the need to read the whole document. In addition, the readers interested primarily in conclusions and recommendations may refer to them immediately.

Introduction

The introduction contains the main essence of an analytical paper, providing the context in which a given problem exists, its gist and principal foundations of the research. It helps the reader to understand the research matter and further content of the paper. This part is aimed at convincing the reader of the crucial problem’s existence, and, hence, of the expediency of reading the document, as it offers available means of its solving.

The issues to be covered in the “Introduction”

1. What led to the current situation (what is the context in which the problem exists?)

2. Which problem does the paper address?

3. What is the research goal?

4. What is the research methodology? 51

4. What is the structure of the analytical paper?

Analysis of the problem and its causes

The process of identifying and analyzing the current problems in policies is the most crucial, the most complicated and the most important stage of an analytical research, bearing impact on the success of all its further stages. Depending on how accurately the problem is defined, the recommendations for the problem solving (i.e. the main task of the research) can be more or less efficient. The process of the problem identification is heuristic by its nature, i.e. one and only approach to the accurate definition of the problem does not exist.

The issues to be covered in the “Analysis of the problem and its causes”

1. What are the problem’s characteristics (symptoms)?

2. What is the problem?

3. Why the problem is the most crucial of all?

4.What is the scope and the impact of the problem?

5. What are the main causes of the problem?

6. Whom does the problem affect and how (who wins and who loses)?

7. What will the consequences be if the problem remains unsolved?

Assessment of the policy addressing this problem

Prior to considering the possible ways of resolving the problem, we should find out what the authorities have already done in this area and what the results of their operation are. It will allow us to use the acquired positive expertise and dismiss the scenarios, which proved inefficient.

The issues to be covered in the “Assessment of the policy addressing this problem”

1. Have the efforts been made to resolve the problem?

2. What were the results and why?

3. What were the errors/obstacles in earlier efforts to resolve the problem?

4. Who supported/opposed the efforts to resolve the problem and why?

5. Who wins/loses from the policy changes?

Analysis of possible scenarios for problem solving

52

The main task of the public policy document is providing convincing and exhaustive arguments in favor of one of the possible scenarios for the problem solving. This section should contain the description of each scenario’s potential in solving the problem and the comparison of all of them. Each version must include the components of legal/normative changes, institutional and financial changes. The results of assessment and comparison of all scenarios should demonstrate which version (or combination of versions) is the best for efficient problem solving. This section’s provisions provide basis and substantiation for the final recommendations offered in the next section.

The issues to be covered in the “Analysis of possible scenarios for problem solving”

1. What are the possible scenarios for problem solving?

2. What criteria are used to assess the possible versions?

3. What are the flaws and the advantages of each scenario?

4. What approaches are used to substantiate each scenario?

5. What will be the chosen scenario’s impact on stakeholders?

6. What is the general assessment of each scenario?

Recommendations for the problem solving

Developing recommendations is one of the main procedures in the analytical research in the area of public policy. It is through these recommendations that theoretical knowledge of various evaluative and practical criteria in choosing the appropriate way of the problem solving translates into the language of specific decisions.

The issues to be covered in the “Recommendations for the problem solving”

1. What recommendations can be provided based on the analysis of all the variants?

2. Why the recommendations will be more instrumental in the problem solving as compared to existing policies or other scenarios?

3. Is the chosen scenario for the problem solving described in sufficient detail?

4. Are all the possible negative consequences taken into account?

Implementation of the recommendations for the problem solving

1. What measures (regulatory (legal), administrative (institutional) etc) should be taken for the implementation of the recommendations?

2. What resources are needed for the recommendations’ implementation?

3. What are the major anticipated obstacles (financial, legal, ethical etc) in recommendations’ implementation?

53

4. What is the way to overcome these obstacles?

5. What major risks can influence the recommendations’ implementation?

6. How can these risks be mitigated in practical implementation?

7. What are the levers of influencing stakeholders so that they would approve and implement the recommendations?

8. How shall the process of recommendations’ implementation be controlled and assessed?

Consultations with the stakeholders

The main tasks of the consultations with the stakeholders are:

Improving the decision-making process by including opinion and expertise of the entities concerned, thus ensuring its solid substantiation and support by the stakeholders;

Promoting involvement and encouragement of the stakeholders in formulating the goals of the state policy, identifying the crucial problems in policy, their causes and possible ways or solving, developing and implementing of the action plans;

Making public various stakeholders’ positions in their vision of policy, the measures, taken by them and providing them with the opportunity to plead their cause;

Organizing dialogue and resolving conflicts between various stakeholders with respect to the topical issues of policy;

Promoting collaboration between the NGOs and power bodies, political parties’ representatives, business entities, national and regional public organizations;

Ensuring broad coverage and access to information on approaches and possible scenarios for problem solving for the public at large.

These fundamental principles should be taken into account in preparing and carrying out consultations with the stakeholders:

consultations are conducted with the stakeholders, and not with public at large;

Consultations only allow for identifying the stand and collecting the commentaries and proposals from the stakeholders concerning the topic of consultation, to be used by the officials in their decision-making. Consultations do not replace the decision-making process;

consulting process should be institutionalized, i.e. regulated by certain mechanisms and procedures, mandatory in decision-making or other defined activities;

54

consulting process is based on the civil society institute, which plays significant role in facilitating a broad political dialogue;

Consultations’ efficiency is ensured by drafting principles and standard procedures for consultations and use of their results, and subsequent adherence to them.

Identification and analysis of the stakeholders is one of the most important components of the consultations, as their opinions and stands will be taken into account in public policy campaign.

Analysis of the stakeholders stipulates identification of

stakeholders’ interests with respect to the issues offered for the consultation, or to the project as a whole and their potential influence on the campaign outcomes;

existing or potential conflicts of interests between the stakeholders, which can affect the campaign;

relations between various stakeholders and relations which could forged for the efficient campaign;

Relevant form of various stakeholders’ participation at the various campaign stages.

The stakeholders’ analysis covers

identifying the potential stakeholders and compiling the list of those;

defining their interests ( open and covert) in the issues addressed by the public policy campaign;

assessing briefly the campaign’s effect on the stakeholders’ interests’;

Ensuring relative prioritization of each of the stakeholders in the campaign.

Consultations with the stakeholders are conducted mainly in the form of a structured public discussion with the following characteristics:

The representatives of all the stakeholders, i.e. of the social groups most affected by the problems addressed in the document and by the proposed changes in state policy, are invited to participate in the discussion. This choice of target audience ensures that the discussion will reflect the real situation in the given policy area;

The discussion with the stakeholders is based on the interim/final version of the analytical paper: обговорення

The discussion with the stakeholders is built around specific issues formulated in advance by the task force experts and submitted to the stakeholders’ representatives, invited for discussion.

55

The main task of the discussion over the interim version between the stakeholders and the experts is familiarizing the former with the policy issues addressed by the document and seeking their opinions and ideas with respect to the causes, evaluation of the current policy and possible scenarios for the problem solving.

The main task of the discussion over the final version between the stakeholders and the experts is familiarizing the former with the proposed scenarios for the problem solving and seeking their opinions and ideas with respect to the advantages and flaws of different variants, choice of the best variant/combination of variants and recommendations on the implementation.

Main procedures for preparing and conducting public discussion

1. Setting up organization committee for preparing and conducting public discussion.

2. Drafting the program for public discussion.

3. Compiling the list of participants.

4. Informing the stakeholders.

5. Providing logistic support for the public discussion.

6. Conducting public discussion.

7. Evaluating public discussion.

8. Summarizing the results of public discussion.

9. Disseminating and using the results of the public discussion.

Consultations’ with the stakeholders’ results are used for:

Informing the participants about the consultations’ results. Report following the consultations should be provided to all the participants and other stakeholders. It gives the assurance that they have been heard and encourages their participation in the further consultations.

Devising and publishing of the relevant informational and analytical materials in mass media, these materials will cover the issues under discussion and various stakeholders’ stands with respect to these issues. Eventually, when appropriate political documents are issued or certain political decisions are made following the consultations, relevant information should be published in mass media. It will be a vivid example and signal for the stakeholders that their opinions and ideas have been heard and taken into account, incentive for their further active participation in the consultations.

Introducing changes and amendments to the analytical documents, the main provisions of which were addressed at the consultations. Then the consultations’ results will be thoroughly analyzed, especially in the focus of applying new

56

approaches in the issues addressed by the consultations; additional information on the stakeholders’ position and evaluation of the level of support for the document provisions by the specific interest groups.

57

Research tools

The quantitative methods of research are advisable for the analysis of the mapping of decentralization and local self-government reform. The advantage of the quantitative methods in sociological research is that they provide the opportunity not only to establish a phenomenon, but also to uncover its causes and consequences.

The principal quantitative methods include observation, in-depth interview, focus groups and case studies. For the purposes of this research the use of two methods, i.e. in-depth interview and focus groups, are proposed.

An in-depth interview

This method consists in posing consequent probing questions by the expert interviewer to a respondent. The goal is to understand why this latter behaves in a certain way, or has certain opinions on a problem. The respondent is asked questions concerning the research topic; the answers are optional. The interviewer would ask a question “Why did you answer the way you did?” “Can you substantiate your opinion?” “Can you offer some convincing arguments?” The answers to these questions help the interviewer to understand the respondent’s thinking process and to response relevantly, “deepening” the interview. In the course of the interview, the interviewer can introduce changes to the initial script.

Substantial structure of the questions offered for the in-depth interviews, is given in the attached questionnaire.

Focus groups

The focus group research method consists in conducting a well-prepared discussion on a given topic with a small group of people (8–2 persons), selected against certain criteria, to get the understanding of their behavior or their attitude towards a process or a problem. The discussion is led by the professional moderator, who channels it within the frame of the chosen topics. The whole discussion is audio-or video-recorded, to enable further analysis of the material and preparation of the report based on the focus group results.

One of the advantages of the said method is its relative simplicity and easiness of use; it gives the opportunity to get the idea of values, position, motives and attitudes of the people in the informal atmosphere, which encourages people to share their opinions and make decisions.

Recommendations for the focus groups

The order in which focus groups are to be held

1. Identifying the research goals

58

2. Defining selection criteria for participants.

3. Selecting participants.

4. Developing the plan for a focus group

5. Preparing the venue and equipment

6. Holding a focus group

7. Preparing report based on the focus group results.

Defining the research goals

At this stage of the research, it it expedient to identify its goals, i.e to define which problems shall be studies, to what end and how the research results will be used. Respective criteria for participants’ selection will be devised, as well as the number of focus groups, topics for discussion, moderator’s plan, prepare handouts for the participants. At this stage the need for the focus groups in meeting specific goals is to be substantiated ( or the expediency of using another, more appropriate research method); accurate description of the problem and related information should be provided; the population (certain community or social group) and the scope of the research should be defined.

Defining the criteria for participants’ selection

The next stage involves establishing criteria, against which the focus groups participants will be selected, and specialization of the focus groups depending on their number. The number of the focus groups within one research can vary depending on its goals from four to 10. Several variables should be taken into account when defining the focus groups’ composition. The most efficient size of a focus group stipulates 8 to 12 persons. If there are fewer participants, the necessary dynamics for productive group effort is not achieved, so that moderator has to work a lot trying to activate the group’s operation. If there are more participants, it is hard to launch a fruitful discussion; a group might fall into several sub-groups, each with their own agenda, while only several persons will contribute to the general discussion. Usually the members of the focus groups are joint together by combining several factors; however, certain homogeneity should be preserved, to ensure efficient discussion and exchange of opinions. The established criteria should guarantee the achievement of the goals, formulated for the research.

Participants’ selection

Participants are selected for the research with the help of a filtering questionnaire, prepared on the basis of the selection criteria and with due consideration for the homogeneity requirement. It will allow avoiding participation of the undesirable individuals in the focus groups (i.e. people who already participated in the focus groups, sociologists, marketing specialists etc).

59

Drafting a plan for the focus groups

At this stage, the moderator’s questions should be prepared, enabling him/her efficient orchestrating of the focus group, covering all the necessary topics and ensuring compatibility of results obtained in all groups. Usually, up to 10 questions are offered for the discussion. The actual number of questions might be larger, to allow the moderator more adequate streaming of the discussion. The form of questions also can vary as well as their order, after the first focus groups have been held.

Preparation of the venue and equipment

Focus groups should be held in the premises, adequately equipped for this purpose (i.e. observer’s room, separated from the meeting hall by “transparent” wall, or with the monitor, which allow to follow the discussion), or in the rooms temporarily equipped for the event. The room should be located at the venue, easily accessible for the respondents. The room should be big enough to accommodate up to 12 participants, moderator, his/her assistants and the needed equipment. It should be soundproof and cleaned from the things, which can divert the participants’ attention. Audio- and video-recorders, TV or tape-recorder should be ready in advance, as well as the beverages, snacks and handouts for the participants. Discussion should take place at the round table so that participants could see each other.

Holding a focus group

Moderator and his/her assistants must arrive to the focus group venue earlier, to check the availability and functioning of the equipment, all the necessary materials etc. The first meeting of the participants who arrived for the focus group takes place in a separate room, where they fill out a registration card and have a chance to talk to each other. The participants’ meeting plays the role of the ultimate filter and helps in establishing informal atmosphere. After this meeting the participants enter the actual room where the focus group will be held, and take their seats.

At the beginning, the moderator makes brief introduction, familiarizing participants with the topic and procedure/rules of the discussion. Then the moderator offers several easy questions for all the participants to answer. It will create the atmosphere of involvement, openness and focus. After that, the group moves to the main part of the discussion in accordance with the plan. In its course, the necessary information should be obtained, even if it is not mentioned in the list of topics.

The focus group moderator should strictly adhere to his/her script, trying to encourage every member of the group to speak up, so that everyone’s opinion is heard, even if a person tries to evade a certain question. The moderator should ensure that no conflict situations arise.

In the main part of the discussion moderator faces two major tasks: regulating the discussion and channeling it in accordance with the research goal. Moderator encourages open and sincere exchange of opinions, demonstrates interest towards the

60

participants’ positions and readiness to understand and accept different points of view. Moderator cannot interfere into discussion, express his/her opinions, evaluate directly or indirectly participants’ positions, provide comments on their presentations. Moderator should exercise a great deal of self-discipline to minimize his/her influence on the participants’ points of view and obtain objective picture of their attitude towards the matter under discussion.

The final part of the focus group is aimed at keeping participants happy and offering them positive emotional attitude towards the focus group research. After discussion is completed, the moderator thanks participants for his /her contribution and advises where he or she would receive their reimbursement or gifts.

Reporting the focus group results

The results of the focus group minutes’ analysis (decoding the recording) should be prepared in the form of a report with participants’ direct opinions as examples. The report should reflect the goal and tasks of the research and summarize and put together most important ideas phrased by the participants.

Structure of the report on the focus group results

Introduction.

Goals.

Methodology.

Results.

Recommendations.

Introduction

This report section should not exceed one page and should contain the information on the research goal, its place in the general research etc.

Goals

Brief description of the goals of the focus group, in their connection with topical plan devised by moderator.

Methodology

This section offers brief description of the ways in which focus group was held, i.e. when and where, how the participants were selected, what types of groups were set up in accordance with the selection criteria etc.

Results

61

This section provides interpretation of the results of discussions in the given set of groups and moderator’s conclusions with respect to the most important pieces of information obtained in the course of the discussion.

Recommendations and further steps.

Recommendations and/or necessary steps with regards to the future actions, based on the evaluation of the collected data should be offered.

62

Questionnaire for the discussion with the leaders of the local government bodies

1. What legal/normative acts regulate your everyday operation?

2. What strategy are you implementing now?

3. What is the schedule for the strategy implementation?

4. What conflicts with raion administration are you facing?

5. How do you resolve these conflicts?

6. Are you happy with your administrative structure, level of knowledge and skills of your employees?

7. What, in your view, are the obstacles (legal and normative) to the normal operation of your institution?

8. What obstacles do you see in the administrative system?

9. What specific changes (articles, language) should be introduced into the legal and normative acts?

10. What provisions need to be eliminated?

11. What new provisions, currently absent, but very essential, should be introduced?

12. What changes should be introduced into the administrative system – structures, procedures, standards, skills?

13. What should be cancelled, what should be set up, what should be changed?

14. Who are you “advocates” in supporting these changes? How often do you meet in your association?

15. Do you undertake the responsibility to make these changes happen?

16. Who should be in charge of them?

63

Addenda

Normative and legal foundations, legislative decentralization

1919 – 1990 Soviet era

Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1919

Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1937 (Articles 2, 3, 72)

Ukr.SSR Constitution of 1978 (Articles 2, 6, 78, 82, 124, 125)

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On city, district council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR”

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On raion council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR”

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On settlement council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR”

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On village council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR”

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On oblast’ council of the people’s deputies of the Ukr.SSR”

Decree of the Ukr. SSR Supreme Rada Presidium “On procedure for addressing the issues of administrative and territorial structure of the Ukr.SSR of March 12, 1981

1990

Law of Ukr.SSR “On introducing changes and amendments to the Ukr.SSR Constitution” of October 24, 1990

Law of Ukr.SSR “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self government” of December 7, 1990.

1991

Law of the Ukr.SSR “On establishing the office of the President of the Ukr.SSR and introducing changes and amendments to the Ukr.SSR Constitution (fundamental law) of July, 5, 1991.

1992 – 1994

Law of Ukraine “On President’s of Ukraine Representative” of March 5, 1992.

64

Law of Ukraine “On local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self government” of March 26, 1992 /new version of the Law of Ukraine “on local councils of the people’s deputies and local and regional self government” of December 7, 1990/

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On By-laws on the local state administration” of April 14, 1992

1994

Law of Ukraine On setting up local bodies of authority and local self governments” of February 3, 1994

Law of Ukraine “ On introducing changes and amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On setting up local bodies of authority and local self governments” of June 28, 1994

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On ensuring the governance of the structures of the state executive power at the local level” of August 6, 1994.

1995

Constitutional Agreement between the President of Ukraine and the Supreme Rada of Ukraine “On main principles of organization and operation of the state power and local self government for the period prior to adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine” of June 8, 1995 (Articles 46, 47, 49, 53)

Decree of the President of Ukraine On By-laws of the local state administration and By-laws on raions, district in Kiev and Sebastopol state administrations” of August 21, 1995.

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On delegating the competencies of the state executive power to the heads of the executive committees and the committees of the village, settlement and city councils” of December 30, 1995.

1996

Constitution of Ukraine, June 28, 1996 (Articles 7, 118, 140)

1997 – 1999

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On State Board for organizing the administrative reform in Ukraine” of July 7, 1997

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On measures of implementing the administrative reform in Ukraine” of July 22, 1998

65

Law of Ukraine “On local self government in Ukraine” of May 25, 1997 – third version, currently in force.

Law of Ukraine “On the local state administrations” of April 9, 1999

2001 – 2002

Law of Ukraine “On service in the local self government” of June 7, 2001

Law of Ukraine “On self-organization bodies of population” of July 11, 2001

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On state support for the local self governance development in Ukraine” of August 30, 2001

Law of Ukraine “On the status of the local councils’ deputies” of June 11, 2002

2006

Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine №1001 of July 21, 2006 “On approving the national strategy for the regional development till the year 2015”

Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approving the action plan for the period till 2014 on implementation of the Concept for reforming the system of retraining and upgrading of the public servants and local self governments’ officials”.

2007 – 2008

Concept for the national regional policy

Draft Concept for the reform in local self governance in Ukraine

Draft Concept for the reform in administrative/territorial structure

Draft Concept for the improvements in the system of retraining and upgrading of the local self governments’ officials and local councils’ deputies”.

Draft of the Law of Ukraine “On the foundations of the national regional policy”

2009

Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approving the Concept for the reform in local self governance” of July 29, 2009

Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approving the action plan for implementation of the Concept for the reform in local self governance” of December 2, 2009

66

2010

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On disbanding the work group for developing proposals with respect to the local self governments’ development” of April 2, 2010 (partial invalidation of the Decree of the President of Ukraine “On national support for local self government in Ukraine” of August 30, 2001)

Decree of the President of Ukraine “On council of regions” of April 9, 2010

Law of Ukraine “On elections of the deputies to the Supreme Council of the ARC, local councils and village, settlements and city heads” of July 10, 2010.

Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On approving the Concept of the National target program for support of social and economic development of small cities for the period between 2011 and 2015” of August 18, 2010

Instruction of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “Some aspects of the local self government reform” of September 29, 2010 (introducing changes to the action plan for the implementation of the Concept for the reform in local self governance)

2011 рік

Annual President’s Address to the Supreme Rada of Ukraine in 2011

Instruction of the President of Ukraine № 1-1/144 of 25.01.2012 on the results of the International municipal hearings “Development of good governance at the local and regional levels” (1.11.2011, Kiev)

Instruction of the President of Ukraine № 1-1/2241 of September 27, 2011 on the results of the VII Ukrainian municipal forum.

2012

Decree of the President of Ukraine № 96/2012 of 15.02.2012 “On changes in the structure of regions”

Decree of the President of Ukraine On Constitutional Assembly” of May 17, 2012

President’s of Ukraine address at the council of regions’ meeting of May 24, 2012

President’s of Ukraine address at the council of regions’ meeting of December 25, 2012

2013

President’s of Ukraine address at the council of regions’ meeting of March 21, 2013

67

Legislative initiatives

2008 – 2009

Draft Law of Ukraine “on introducing changes to the Law of Ukraine “On self-organization bodies of population”, registered on 21.02.2008 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

Draft Housing Code of Ukraine registered on 17.03.2009 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

2010

Draft Election Code (local elections), registered on 23.03.2010 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

Draft Law of Ukraine “On local self-governance”

Draft Law of Ukraine “On local referenda”, registered on 03.09.2010 in the Supreme Radar of Ukraine

Draft Law of Ukraine “On incentives and state support for the amalgamation of the rural territorial communities” Minregionbud, December 2010

2011

Draft Law of Ukraine “On amalgamation of the territorial communities” registered on 14.12.2011 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

Draft Law of Ukraine “On local initiatives”, registered on 03.11.2011 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

2012

Draft Law of Ukraine “On service in the local self governments”, registered on 11.01.2012 in the Supreme Rada of Ukraine

Source: www.rada.gov.ua

68

http://www.rada.gov.ua/

Draft Concepts for decentralization reforms in Ukraine

Initiatives and proposals of the local self-government bodies and their associations

Draft Concept for the local self-government and territorial power organization reform, devised by the Ministry of the regional development, construction and housing and communal economy of Ukraine and dated May 4, 2012, at the ministerial site.

Draft framework document “Main strategic areas of reforms in the local self-government in Ukraine” ( including proposals)

Draft Concept for the reform of the local self-government in Ukraine, prepared by All-Ukrainian association of the local self-government bodies “Association of Ukrainian cities”,http :// www . auc . org . ua

Draft Concept for the reform in territorial power organization in Ukraine, prepared by All-Ukrainian association of the local self-government bodies “Association of raion and oblast’ councils” , http://uaror.org.ua

Draft “Proposals for the development and support of the local self-government in Ukraine” prepared by All-Ukrainian association of the village and settlement councils, http://vassr.org/index.php/u a

Draft “Proposals for the reform in the local self-government and territorial power organization in Ukraine”, prepared by All-Ukrainian Association of Ukrainian cities, , http :// www . auc . org . ua

Concept for the reform in the local self-government, prepared by Vinnitsa oblast’ council http :// www . vinrada . gov . ua / rishennya _ koordinaciynoi _ radi . htm

Academic/experts’ conclusions and recommendations

Summarized proposals made by the National Academy of the public governance under the President of Ukraine on the questionnaire addressing development and support of the local self-government in Ukraine, http://www.academy.gov.ua

Recommendations of the round table “ Local self-governance in Ukraine – current situation and trends of future development” (Kiev, National Academy of the public governance under the President of Ukraine, December, 5, 2012)

Proposals chart to the draft framework document “Main strategic areas for the reform in the local self-government in Ukraine” submitted to the State Foundation for the support of the local self-government in Ukraine by regional centers for retraining and upgrading of the state employees, local self governments’ officials,

69

http://www.academy.gov.ua/

http://www.vinrada.gov.ua/rishennya_koordinaciynoi_radi.htm

http://www.auc.org.ua/

http://vassr.org/index.php/ua

http://uaror.org.ua/


governmental bodies, agencies and organizations, colleges, which train specialists in public governance. http://municipal.gov.ua

Source: www . municipal . gov . ua

70

http://www.municipal.gov.ua/

http://municipal.gov.ua/

Recommendations and conclusions of the Council of Europe with respect to decentralization reforms in Ukraine

Conceptual and strategic CE documents

Memorandum of understanding between the government of Ukraine and the Council of Europe on establishing the CE Office in Ukraine and its legal status

CE Action Plan for Europe for the years 2011 – 2014

International treaties/conventions

European Charter on local self government

Additional protocol to the European Charter on local self government on the right to participate in the local self-government matters

European framework convention on trans-boundary cooperation between the territorial communities or authorities

Additional protocol to the European framework convention on trans-boundary cooperation between the territorial communities or authorities

Protocol № 2 to the European framework convention on trans-boundary cooperation between the territorial communities or authorities, addressing the trans-territorial collaboration

Protocol № 3 to the European framework convention on trans-boundary cooperation between the territorial communities or authorities, addressing the associations of the Euro-regional cooperation

Convnention on foreigners’ participation in the public life at the local level

Council of Europe recommendations

Recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the supervision over the self-government activities (Rec (1998)12)

Recommendations of the Congress of local and regional power bodies on the status of local and regional democracies in Ukraine (Rec 102 (2001)

Recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on citizens’ participation in the local public life (Rec(2001)19)

71

Recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on financial sources of the local and regional bodies of power (Rec(2005)1)

Recommendations of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on best practices and overcoming the obstacles in trans-boundary and inter-territorial cooperation between territorial communities and authorities (Rec(2005)2)

Source: http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/conceptual/

Conclusions and recommendations of the CoE experts

2010

CoE Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-Government_2010

CoE proposals for the National Strategy of Decentralization and Local Self- Government Reform in Ukraine in 2010-2013_2010

CoE Appraisal of the Draft Concept of the State Program of Support for the Social and Economic Development of Small Cities for 2011-2015_2010

CoE Appraisal of the Draft Electoral Code of Ukraine (Local Elections)_2010 CoE Appraisal of the Draft Law on Local Self-Government in Ukraine_2010 CoE

Report on Compliance of the Ukrainian Legislation with the Principles of the European Charter for Local Self-Government_2010

CoE Appraisal of the Draft Law of Ukraine on the Special Rules Applicable to Lend-Lease and Concession Agreements for Water Supply, Heat Supply and Sewage in Municipal Property_2010

2011

CoE Appraisal of the Draft Housing Code of Ukraine_2011 CoE Appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine on Stimulation and State Support of

Unification of Rural Territorial Communities_2011 CoE Appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine On Local Referenda_2011 CoE Policy advice on the Improvement of External Audit of Local Budgets in

Ukraine_2011 CoE Policy advice on Service in the LSG Bodies of Ukraine_2011 CoE Policy Advice on the Road Map to Develop the Water Sector in Ukraine_2011 CoE Policy advise on the Proposals for Improving the Territorial Organization of

Power_2011 CoE Policy advice on the Social Privileges_2011 CoE Appraisal of the draft amendments to the Budget Code of Ukraine on the

Creation of the State Fund for Regional Development_2011 CoE Policy advice on the Allocation of Inter-Budgetary Transfers_2011 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine On the Civil Service_2011

2012

CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine On Amalgamation of Territorial Communities_2012

72

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-Amalgamation-of-Territorial-Communities_2012.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-Amalgamation-of-Territorial-Communities_2012.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CoE-appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-the-Civil-Service_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advice-on-the-Allocation-of-Inter-Budgetary-Transfers_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-draft-amendments-to-the-Budget-Code-of-Ukraine-on-the-Creation-of-the-State-Fund-for-Regional-Development_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-draft-amendments-to-the-Budget-Code-of-Ukraine-on-the-Creation-of-the-State-Fund-for-Regional-Development_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advice-on-the-Social-Privileges_2011.pdf



http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-Advice-on-the-Road-Map-to-Develop-the-Water-Sector-in-Ukraine_201.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advice-on-Service-in-the-LSG-Bodies-of-Ukraine_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advice-on-the-Improvement-of-External-Audit-of-Local-Budgets-in-Ukraine_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Policy-advice-on-the-Improvement-of-External-Audit-of-Local-Budgets-in-Ukraine_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine_On-Local-Referenda_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine-on-Stimulation-and-State-Support-of-Unification-of-Rural-Territorial-Communities_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-draft-Law-of-Ukraine-on-Stimulation-and-State-Support-of-Unification-of-Rural-Territorial-Communities_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Housing-Code-of-Ukraine_2011.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Law-of-Ukraine-on-the-Special-Rules-Applicable-to.pdf






http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Law-on-Local-Self-Government-in-Ukraine_2010.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Electoral-Code-of-Ukraine-Local-Elections_2010.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Concept-of-the-State-Programme-of-Support-for-the.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Appraisal-of-the-Draft-Concept-of-the-State-Programme-of-Support-for-the.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Proposals-for-the-National-Strategy-of-Decentralisation-and-Local-Self-G.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CoE-Proposals-for-the-National-Strategy-of-Decentralisation-and-Local-Self-G.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CoE-Report-on-Compliance-of-the-Ukrainian-Legislation-with-the-Principles-of-the-European-Charter-for-Local-Self-Government_2010.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CoE-Report-on-Compliance-of-the-Ukrainian-Legislation-with-the-Principles-of-the-European-Charter-for-Local-Self-Government_2010.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/conceptual/

CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine On Local Initiatives_2012 CoE appraisal of the draft Law of Ukraine On the Local Government Service_2012 CoE appraisal of the draft Concept of the Local Self-Government Reform and

Territorial Organization of Power June Source: http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/appraisals/

Analytical papers

Note “Early termination of the city mayors’ authority: most resonant cases (2010-2012)”

Brief assessment of the draft law of Ukraine on amendments to the law of Ukraine on organs of autonomous organization of the population

Note on the present projects on local government reform and on inter-municipal co-operation

Note on the review of the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine on the territorial organization of the State and local self-government

Source: http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/analytical/

73

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/analytical/

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Note-on-the-review-of-the-provisions-of-the-Constitution-of-Ukraine-on-the-territorial-organisation-of-the-State-and-local-self-government.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Note-on-the-review-of-the-provisions-of-the-Constitution-of-Ukraine-on-the-territorial-organisation-of-the-State-and-local-self-government.pdf



http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brief-assessment-of-the-draft-law-of-Ukraine-on-amendments-to-the-law-of-Ukraine-on-organs-of-autonomous-organisation-of-the-population.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brief-assessment-of-the-draft-law-of-Ukraine-on-amendments-to-the-law-of-Ukraine-on-organs-of-autonomous-organisation-of-the-population.pdf

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/category/documents/appraisals/





List of technical assistance projects to support decentralization in Ukraine

2004 – 2005

“Municipal program of governance and sustainable development”

UNDP project, implemented with the Swiss Confederation support. Duration: 01.04.2004 - 31.12.2012. financial support from all donors/partners in 2011 amounted to USD 603,927. See : www.msdp.undp.org.ua

Regional governance and development

Project is implemented by the Canadian Institute of Urbanity, with financial support from CIDA. Duration: 2005 – 2013. CIDA contribution - 7,650,814 $. See: http://canurb.org/international/programming/current/ukraine and http://www.rgd.org.ua

2007 – 2009

Decentralization support in Ukraine (DESPRO)

Project is funded by the Swiss confederation through SDC and implemented by Skat agency. Duration: 2007 – 2015. Budget - 4 967 905 CHF. See: www.despro.org.ua and http://www.swiss-cooperation.admin.ch

Local community-based development (CBA)

Joint EU and UNDP project. Duration: 03.09.2007 – 05.06.2011 (stage I); 06.06.2011 - 30.06.2015 (stage II). Budget for the stage II - 17, 1 million euro (98.4% - EU contribution, and 1.6% - UNDP contribution). See: www . cba . org . ua

Technical assistance to Ukrainian municipalities (EBRD-01)

Project is implemented by EBRD. Duration: December 2008 – December 2016. EU contribution: € 5,000,000.00 (100% of the total cost). See: http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/ukraine.shtml

Strengthening of local financial initiative (MFSI)

Project is implemented by the USAID sector of economic development as local self-governance priority. Duration: 2008 – 2014 See: http :// ukraine . usaid . gov / programs / economic - growth - en / local - governance - en

Local self governance in Ukraine: upgrading the staff and applied research

Project is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Project is implemented by two partners – associations of the local self-government bodies – Association of the Ukrainian cities and Norwegian association of the local and regional authorities in collaboration with the independent research centers in Ukraine and Norway. Duration: 2009 – 2011. See: http://auc.org.ua

74

http://auc.org.ua/

http://ukraine.usaid.gov/programs/economic-growth-en/local-governance-en

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/ukraine.shtml

http://www.cba.org.ua/

http://www.swiss-cooperation.admin.ch/

http://www.despro.org.ua/

http://www.rgd.org.ua/

http://canurb.org/international/programming/current/ukraine

http://www.msdp.undp.org.ua/

2010

CE Program Strengthening of the local democracy and support for the local self-governance reforms in Ukraine

Project is implemented by the Center for the expertise in local self-government reforms under Directorate General on the issues of democracy CE with financial support provided by Swedish government. Secretariat General Duration: January 2010 – March 2013. Budget: Swedish contribution: approximately 1 600 000 CHF; Swiss contribution: approximately 180 000 CHF. See: http://www.slg-coe.org.ua

Building up capacity of economically justified planning of the development of oblasts and and cities of Ukraine

Project is funded by CIDA and governed by the Conference Board of Canada (CBoC). Duration: 2010 – 2015 рр. See: www . ebed . org . ua

Municipal local economic development in Ukraine

Project is implemented by Federation of Canadian Municipalities with financial support from CIDA. Duration: January 2010 – December 2014. CIDA contribution: 14,147,560 $. See: http://www.mled.org.ua/

Support for the regional development in Crimea

Project is funded by the EU; co-funded and implemented by UNDP with ARC government. Duration: 2010 – 2012 (stage І), 2012 – 2013 (stage ІІ). Total budget: about 2, 4 million euro. See: http://www.srdc.crimea.ua та http://www.undp.org.ua

Support for the agency of the regional development in Crimea

Project is implemented by UNDP. Duration: July 2010 – June 2013. EU contribution: € 1,500,000.00 (97% of the total cost). See: http://www.undp.crimea.ua

Initiative for the protection of rights and representation of the interests of local self-governments in Ukraine (DIALOGUE)

Project is funded by USAID. Executor – Association of Ukrainian cities. Duration: 2010 – … See: http :// dialogueauc . org . ua /

Citizen and state: developing partnership for efficient governance in Ukraine

Project is implemented by the British Council in Ukraine with the association “Social and Economic strategies and partnerships” and Laboratory of legal initiatives, and funded by the EU. Duration: October 2010 – September 2012. EU contribution: € 170,299.00 (90% of the total cost). See: http://www.britishcouncil.org/ukraine-projects-citizen-and-state.htm

Enhancing the role of community in solving local social issues

Project is implemented by the Ukrainian foundation “Children’s welfare” with the financial support from the EU. Duration: 2010 - 2013 рр. EU contribution: 184,395.00 € 85% of the total cost). See: http://childfund.org.ua/en/eu_2011-2013/actions/view/1241/

75

http://childfund.org.ua/en/eu_2011-2013/actions/view/1241/

http://childfund.org.ua/en/eu_2011-2013/actions/view/1241/

http://www.britishcouncil.org/ukraine-projects-citizen-and-state.htm

http://www.britishcouncil.org/ukraine-projects-citizen-and-state.htm

http://dialogueauc.org.ua/

http://www.undp.crimea.ua/

http://www.undp.org.ua/

http://www.srdc.crimea.ua/

http://www.mled.org.ua/

http://www.ebed.org.ua/

http://www.slg-coe.org.ua/

2011

CE Program “Strengthening of the institutional capacity of the local self government bodies in Ukraine”

Project is implemented by CE. Duration: April 2011 – March 2014. Budget: CHF 780'000. See: http://scaleup.org.ua

Good governance and combating corruption in the countries of Eastern partnership

Joint project of the CE and the EU, funded by the Eastern partnership foundation of the CE and the EU. Duration: March 2011 р – August 2013. Total cost: € 187 727. See: http://www.coe.kiev.ua/

Building the institutional capacity of the local governance bodies and their association for the implementation of the European standards of efficient governance at the local level, ensuring active civic position and democracy of direct participation.

Project is implemented by the CE. Duration: 2011 – 2013. Total cost: €1 200 000 (Contributions from Switzerland and Denmark). See: http://www.coe.kiev.ua/

Program of public-private partnerships

Project is funded by USAID. Executor – Association of Ukrainian cities. Duration: 2011 – … See: http://auc.org.ua/page/programa-rozvitku-derzhavno-privatnogo-partnerstva

Sustainable development of the small towns in Lviv oblast’

Project is implemented by Lviv oblast’ state administration and Institute of governance (Lviv) with the support provided by Hanns Seidel Foundation (Bavaria) office in Ukraine. Duration: 2011 – 2012. See: http://www.hss.kiev.ua

2012

Setting up fact-based policy in the area of the local self-governance in Ukraine

Project is implemented by Association of Ukrainian cities and Norwegian association of the local and regional authorities; Norwegian Institute of the local and regional development with financial support from the MFA of Norway. Duration: 2012 – 2015. See: http://www.auc.org.ua

Sustainable development in the Crimea: models of rural territories transformation and consultations

Project is implemented by UNDP office in Crimea. Duration: 15.04.2012 – 31.12.2016. Project budget for 2012 amounted to 172,276.00 $. Budget for 2012 – 2016 - 323,760.00 $. See: http://www.undp.crimea.ua

Sustainable development of the small towns in Dnepropetrovsk oblast.

Project is implemented by Dnepropetrovsk oblast council and Institute of governance (Lviv) with the support provided by Hanns Seidel Foundation (Bavaria) office in Ukraine. Duration: 2012 – 2013. See: http://www.hss.kiev.ua

“Water – power – development” 76

http://www.hss.kiev.ua/

http://www.undp.crimea.ua/


http://www.hss.kiev.ua/

http://auc.org.ua/page/programa-rozvitku-derzhavno-privatnogo-partnerstva

http://www.coe.kiev.ua/

http://www.coe.kiev.ua/

http://scaleup.org.ua/

Project is implemented by Prior NGO, Rakhiv city council. Duration: February 2012 – May 2013. EU contribution: € 192,226.00 (79% of the total cost). See: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/projects/list_of_projects/281296_en.htm

Local social development

Project is implemented by Eastern Europe foundation. See: www.eef.org.ua

Local economic development

Project is implemented by Eastern Europe foundation. See: www.eef.org.ua

Local self-government development is considered priority area of operation by

Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (Germany)

Goal: Citizen-friendly communal policy See: http://www.ukrajina.fnst.org

Ukrainian-Polish collaboration foundation PAUCI

Goal: Reforming of the local self government/public service. See: http :// www . pauci . org

“Eurasia” foundation

Priority area: Public governance and local self-governance.

Goal – more efficient and accountable governments.

Tasks:

1. Retraining and upgrading of civil servants.

2. Optimizing the mechanisms of the financial management in the municipal and regional bodies of power.

3. Legislation and mechanisms contributing to the efficient operation of the local power bodies.

See: http://www.eurasia.org/russian_new/index.html

77

http://www.eurasia.org/russian_new/index.html

http://www.pauci.org/

http://www.ukrajina.fnst.org/

http://www.eef.org.ua/

http://www.eef.org.ua/

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/ukraine/projects/list_of_projects/281296_en.htm

decentralisation in ukraine_for despro_english_29.03.2013

Government & Nonprofit