Authors - ince.md

Authors:

Alexandru Stratan

Dagmar Škodová Parmová

Dawid Sześciło

Dumitru Stratan

Henrietta Nagy

Maria Dunin-Wąsowicz

Lucia Palsova

Viktória józsa

Zuzana Dvořáková Líšková

The publication have been realized within the project

Introducing EU standards in Moldova: towards a new model

of cooperation and planning, under the Extended Standard

Grants (V4EaP) program, supported by Visegrad Fund.

The project is coordinated by National Institute for Economic Research (Moldova) having as partners

Inspiro Consulting (Republic of Moldova), Szent Istvan University (Hungary), Slovak University of

Agriculture (Slovak Republic), University of South Bohemia (Czech Republic) and European

Development Forum (Poland)

About the authors

The manual have been elaborated by the experts from Poland,

Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Moldova.

The contributors

Project coordinators

Prof. Alexandru Stratan, PhD

Director of the National Institute for Economic Research, Academy of Sciences of Moldova. Mr.

Alexandru Stratan is the coordinator on behalf of NIER of the project “Introducing EU standards

in Moldova: towards a new model of cooperation and planning”.

Mr. Alexandru Stratan conducted researches in various scientific applied projects (TACIS, GEF,

NATO, SCSTD, UNEP, FP7 etc.). Member of the General Assembly of the Academy of

Sciences and the Supreme Council for Science and Technological Development, editorial boards

of several national and international journals, Commission of Experts on the economy of the

National Council for Accreditation and Attestation. He is a member of the Ministry of

Economy’s Board of the Republic of Moldova, Moldova Statistical Council from the Republic

of Moldova, Compliance Council of the State Tax Service, Management Board of the Deposit

Guarantee Fund in the banking system, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Republic of

Moldova in the International Centre for Technical and Scientific Information, Plenipotentiary

Representative of the Republic of Moldova in the CIS Interstate Coordinating Council for

scientific and technical information and also member of the Association "Eurasian Economic

Club of Scientists". In 2012-2013, Mr Stratan was the National Representative of Moldova to the

Program Committee „Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities” of the 7th Framework

Programme and is nowadays the National Representative of Moldova to the Program Committee

„Europe in a changing world” of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European

Union.

In short:

National Institute for Economic Research, Academy of Sciences of Moldova

[email protected]

Dumitru Stratan

Director of Inspiro Consulting, Mr. Dumitru Stratan is coordinating the methodological side of

the project “Introducing EU standards in Moldova: towards a new model of cooperation and

planning”. He holds a master degree in economics at State University of Moldova and a master

in agribusiness and regional development at Szent Istvan University, Hungary. As well he is a

PhD student at Kaposvar University.

He is involved in management consulting industry for 6 years, being specialized in corporate

strategic planning. In the same time, Mr. Stratan in coordinating several regional development

related project financially supported by international organisations

[email protected]

Project partners

Slovakia

JUDr. Lucia Palšová, PhD

- Master in law, PhD. in Public Administration and Regional Development. She is interested

in rural law, mainly in legal aspects of agriculture and environmental law in EU and Slovak

level (lecturing at EU Agri-environmental legislation, EU legislation). She was a member of

the research project Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “EU land policy- the pathway

towards sustainable Europe” financed by Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive

Agency and other educational and research projects. She is author several publications

dealing with the legal aspects of agriculture in the EU and in Slovakia, including

monograph and handbooks. She is a member of the European Council for Rural Law

(CEDR).

-

In short:

Department of Law, Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development, Slovak

Agricultural University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia

[email protected]

Ing. Barbora Babjaková, PhD:

- PhD in Public Administration and Regional Development. She is interested in regional

economics, rural development, strategic planning on the local and regional level and

possibilities to finance regional and rural development (lecturing at regional economics,

rural development, preparing and managing projects of territorial development). She was a

member of the research REDIPE (Regional dimensions of knowledge economics, financed

by Science Grant Agency) and KRENAR (Creative Economy – national and regional

conditions and stimulus, financed by Science Grant Agency). She is a co-author of approx.

30 local strategies, co-author of Integrated Strategies of Rural Development (local action

group’s strategies). She is a member of the Slovak section of European Regional Science

Association (ERSA).

- In short:

Department of Rural and Regional Development, Faculty of European Studies and Regional

Development, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 949 76 Nitra,

Slovakia

[email protected]

Hungary

Viktória Józsa,

MsC in regional and urban development and MsC in agro-economics. PhD student in

Regional Studies at Szent István University, Gödöllő. Her research interest covers regional

and urban development, especially sustainability, innovation and policy development. She

has a wide range of practical experience in strategic programming, regional and local

economic development, policy development, cooperative research and innovation activities

and international cooperation. Her PhD topic is sustainable local economic development in

the CEE region with special focus on the role and local integration of large economic

actors. She acts as an expert evaluator of the European Commission’s Horizon2020 RDI

Framework Programme and leads a consultancy company active in the field of clustering,

regional and urban strategic programming, internationalisation and large scale research and

development and innovation projects. She is the author of numerous strategic programming

documents and several publications.

In short:

Enyedi György Doctoral School of Regional Sciences, Szent István University, Gödöllő

[email protected]

Henrietta Nagy, PhD:

- PhD in Management and Business Administration. Her profile is regional economics,

cohesion policy, rural development, strategic planning on local and regional level. She has

13 years of teaching experience. She is the member of the Association of Polish

Agricultural Economists, Spatial Development Scientific Association, Hungarian Regional

Scientific Association, Hungarian Academy of Science, Committee of Regional Science,

European Regional Science Association, Regional Science Association International and

Regional Studies Association. She is the member of the editorial board of 3 journals.

- In short:

Vice-dean for international relations, associate professor at the Institute of Regional

Economics and Rural Development. Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Szent

István University, Gödöllő, Hungary

[email protected]

Poland

Dr. Maria Dunin–Wąsowicz,

– PhD in political science. Her research interests cover issues in the politics of international

economic relations mainly in the monetary and financial domain, as well as European

integration and its mechanisms of governance. Dr Dunin-Wasowicz has been, inter alia, a

Nieman Fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University (USA).

Between 1998 and 2001 she was a member of the team of advisors to Mr. Jan Kułakowski,

at that time the Secretary of State responsible for Poland's Accession Negotiations to the

European Union. Since 2008 Dr Dunin-Wasowicz has collaborated with the Institute of

International Relations at the University of Warsaw. She is a Member of the Board of the

European Movement Forum (Forum Ruchu Europejskiego, Warsaw, associated Member of

the European Movement International, Brussels). She is the author of numerous

publications on the international economic relations, including monographs and reports;

– In short:

Member of the Board of of the European Movement Forum (Forum Ruchu Europejskiego,

Warsaw, ass. Member of the EMI, Brussels), collaborator with the Institute of International

Relations, the University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.

[email protected]

Dr. Dawid Sześciło,

- PhD in law. He is the assistant professor at the Faculty of Law and Administration,

University of Warsaw (lecturing at public law, public administration theory and public

management); coordinator of the research project “Market-based mechanisms in public

service delivery” funded by National Centre of Science in Poland; legal expert in the

research team of the EU-funded project “Ministries as learning organisations”

(www.mus.edu.pl) aimed at strengthening the mechanisms of organizational learning in the

Polish central government; visiting researcher and lecturer at universities of Salzburg,

Uppsala and Porto. Expert of the non-governmental organizations dealing with human

rights, public governance, judiciary system, electoral law, including Batory Foundation,

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Member of the National Thematic Network on

Good Governance. Author of more than one hundred publications on the public law, public

management and human rights, including monographs and handbooks.

In short:

Public Administration Research Group, Faculty of Law and Administration;

University of Warsaw, Obozna 6, 00-332 Warsaw, Poland.

[email protected]

Czech Republic

Doc. Dr. rer. soc. oec. Ing. Dagmar Škodová Parmová,

– Associate Professor in services management. Her research interests cover issues in the

public a private services management and marketing, in the tourism management, and in the

rural development. Assoc. Prof. Dagmar Škodová Parmová has studied and then taught at

the Johannes Kepler University in Linz. She is a member of Scientific Board of the

University of South Bohemia, a member of Scientific Board of the Faculty of European

Studies and Regional Development of the Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, a

member of The Austrian Society for Agricultural Economics, a member of The Czech

Society for Economics, a member of The Alliance of Tourism Experts of the Czech

Republic, a vice-president of Best Business Award Forum – for sustainable

entrepreneurship. She has collaborated with the Ministry of Education of the Czech

Republic as leader of Internalization of Higher Education Expert Group. She is the author of

80 publications on the services management and marketing, including monographs,

scientific papers and reports;

– In short:

Vice-rector for International Relations, the University of South Bohemia, České

Budějovice, Czech Republic.

[email protected]

Dr. Zuzana Dvořáková Líšková

– PhD in applied and landscape ecology. She is the assistant professor - tutor at the South

Bohemia University, Faculty of Economics, Department of Regional management. She is

focused on economical and social issues of the landscape system at local, districtal and

regional levels including the comparison to an international level. At present she deals with

system changes in culture landscape influenced by global changes, problems of landscape

perception and evaluation and relevant methodological and brownfields aids. She is the

author of numerous publications on the regional managemet, including monographs and

reports;

- In short:

Public Administration Research Group, Faculty of Economics, Department of Regional

management; University of South Bohemia, Studentská 15 České Budějovice, Czech

republic.

[email protected]

Executive Summary

Local government and planning system in developing countries are first of all a top-

down approach that has a vertical decision making meaning. Under such

circumstances, the decentralization reform and local policy making measures are

ineffective.

Under the mentioned above conditions, the publication “Community Strategic

Planning: A Visegrad Reflection for Moldova Change Makers” supported by Visegrad

Fund, aims to explain the process and perspectives of regional development and

community strategic planning in Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary. The

publication shall be considered as a guideline for community developers from Moldova

under the frame of regional development and country association to EU norms and

standards.

The research is elaborated in such benchmarking approach that allows comparison of

four different approaches of strategic planning. The publication clarify following issues

in each of Visegrad countries:

Institutional framework and the role of planning in V4 countries

Regulatory framework and incentives of strategic planning in V4 countries

Methodologies and forms of planning in V4 countries

Practical examples of planning in V4 countries

The role of Local Initiatives Groups in V4 countries.

Regional development is an imperative for Republic of Moldova, proved by

Government engagement in this field. The fact that regional development is a priority

for the country, is proved by decentralization objectives and by both legal background

of regional development (Law No 438-XIV) and strategic planning level of the country

(National Development Strategy).

The EU experience in the field of regional development is implemented by Moldova

local administration in two ways:

i) Improvement the process of elaboration and implementation the regional

development policies, by taking over and adjustment of relevant tools and

mechanisms of regional development in EU countries;

ii) Access to the external financial assistance offered by Operational Programs

within which Republic of Moldova is an eligible country.

In this respect, the experience of EU in the field of regional development must be an

inspiration for Republic of Moldova.

Strategic planning: Polish experience

I. Territorial system and administrative structure of Poland

It was in 1990 when local-self-government initiated its activity in Poland after more

than 50 years of disruption. The 1999 saw the final stage of the creation of a three-tier

self-government. The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistical Purposes (NUTS)

has been in effect since 1.05.2004, thus coincided with Poland’s accession to the

European Union. NUTS in force since 1.01.2008 replaced the former NUTS, which

operated until 31.12.2007. NUTS divides Poland into the territorial units, hierarchically

tied on 5 levels, of which 3 levels are defined as regional:

NUTS 1 – there are 6 regions (6 units) assembling 16 viovodships;

Map 1. 6 Regions in Poland – NUTS 1

NUTS 2 – there are 16 viovodships (16 units);

Map. 2. 16 Voivodships in Poland – NUTS 2

NUTS 3 – there are 66 subregions (66 units) assembling powiats within each

voivodship;

Map 3. 66 Subregions in Poland groupings of powiats -– NUTS 3

Moreover, there are 2 levels defined as local administrative units:

LAU 1 – powiats and cities with powiat status (314 + 65 units);

Map 4. LAU 1 – 314 Powiats

LAU 2 – gminas (2479 units).

The level of economic, social and territorial cohesion of all units in Poland – except for

the Mazowieckie area, with a capital city within its borders – is low. The majority of

Polish territory is covered by less developed regions with an average GDP of

approximately 62% of the EU-27 average, while GDP of Mazowieckie area amounts to

99% of the Union’s average. The area of Dolny Śląsk becomes the second most well-

heeled unit with GDP totalling to ca 68% of the EU average. The subregions in Poland

become the most populated units in the EU, where the average number of inhabitants

for the NUTS 3 units is lower than in Poland by almost 200,000. Since the EU used to

grant the financial means to accomplish regional development task on the basis of data

and indicators obtained at the level of NUTS 2 and 3, Poland’s territorial units have

become the largest beneficiaries of the Cohesion Policy in the years 2007-2013,

accumulating more than 20 % of their allocation. In 2014-2020 Poland is the largest

recipient of these funds with EUR 85,2 bln (with the same level of allocation).

II. Institutional framework and the role of planning in Poland

A new approach towards the management of regional development strategies in Poland

was introduced on 15.05.2009. The strategies are set up, supervised and implemented

within the framework of the national development system which consists of three

development subsystems, such as: programming, institutions and implementation. All

the subsystems follow the principle of partnership aiming at improvement of

cooperation between the government and self-governments and inclusion of a greater

body of regional actors.

A. Subsystem of programming:

- initiates and prepares national strategies along of the strategies set by the EU;

- is formed by the representatives of the government, self-government and by

representatives of social and business partners.

Chart 1. Ideational Framework of Strategic Regional Development Planning in Poland

Source: on the basis of the Marshall’s Office, Lublin 2012.

B. Subsystem of institutions:

- defines the principles of cooperation between all actors involved;

- is formed by the institutional actors as such:

Prime Minister (PM) and the Council of Ministers;

Development Policy Coordination Committee to the PM;

Team of the Strategic Advisors to the PM;

Ministry of the Regional Development;

Self-government of Voivodships;

Social and business partners.

Chart 2. Institutional Distribution of Planning Responsibilities in Poland

Source: on the basis of Marshall’s Office, Lublin 2012.

C. Subsystem of implementation:

- ensures the implementation of strategies described above so as to enable the

completion of the regional operation programmes (ROPs)—parts of the national

operational programmes (NOPs)—by self-government:

- chief actors are:

Self-government of voivodships;

Self-government of powiats and gminas.

Chart 3. Planning Responsibilities at the level of Voivodship

Source: on the basis of Marshall’s Office, Małopolska 2011.

Administrative Board of Voivodship

Companies with Equities of Voivodship

Offices of Voivodeship

Marshal Office of Voivodeship

Table 1. National Operational Programmes Divided into Thematic Goals and Funds, 2014-2020

Op

erat

ion

al

Pro

gra

mm

es

Thematic Goals (TG, indicative)

Funds

Inn

ov

ativ

e

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- Strengthening Research, Technological Development and Innovation;

- Enhancing the Competitiveness of SMEs, of the Agricultural Sector and the

Fishery and Aquaculture Sector.

EFRR

Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d

En

vir

on

men

t

- Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all Sectors;

- Promoting Climate Change Adaptation, Risk Prevention and Management

- Preserving and Protecting the Environment and Promoting Resource

Efficiency;

- Promoting Sustainable Transport and Removing Bottlenecks in Key Network

Infrastructures;

- Promoting Sustainable and Quality Employment and Supporting Labour

Mobility.

FS

EFRR/FS

Kn

ow

led

ge,

Ed

uca

tio

n,

Dev

elo

pm

ent

- Promoting Sustainable and Quality Employment and Supporting Labour

Mobility;

- Promoting Social Inclusion, Combating Poverty abd any Discrimination.

- Investing in Education, Training and Vocational Trainng for Skills and

Lifelong Learning;

- Enhancing Institutional Capacity of Public Authorities and Stakeholders and

Efficient Public Administration;

- Promoting Sustainable and Quality Employment and Supporting Labour

Mobility.

EFS

Dig

ital

Po

lan

d - Enhancing Acces to, and Use and Quality of, ICT

EFRR

Tec

hn

ical

Ass

ista

nce

- in sum FS

Eas

tern

Po

lan

d

- Enhancing the Competitiveness of SMEs, of the Agricultural Sector and the

Fishery and Aquaculture Sector.Support for a Low Emission Economy;

- Promoting Sustainable Transport and Removing Bottlenecks in Key Network

Infrastructures.

EFRR

Reg

ion

al O

P

- Strengthening Research, Technological Development and Innovation;

- Enhancing Acces to, and Use and Quality of, ICT

- Enhancing the Competitiveness of SMEs, of the Agricultural Sector and the

Fishery and Aquaculture Sector.Maintenance and Protection of Environment;

- Promoting Sustainable Transport and Removing Bottlenecks in Key Network

Infrastructures;

- Investing in Education, Training and Vocational Training for Skills and

Lifelong Learning;

- Promoting Social Inclusion, Combating Poverty and any Discrimination;

- Investing in Education, Training and Vocational Training for Skills and

Lifelong Learning.

EFRR

EFRR/FS

Source: on the basis of the Partnership Agreement 2014-2020, p. 165.

III. Regulatory framework and incentives of strategic planning

According to the Law on the Principles of Development Policy, all levels of

government, including regional and local self-government units are involved in

formulation and implementation of development policies. The development policy is

defined as set of interrelated activities undertaken and implemented to ensure the

sustainable development of the country, socio-economic, regional and spatial cohesion,

to raise economic competitiveness and to create new jobs in national, regional or local

scale.

Local self-government units (municipality and county) enjoy autonomy in formulating

their own strategic development policies. They are allowed to adopt their own

strategies, both general development strategies and sectoral documents, e.g. housing

policy or social policy programme. Those strategies are particularly useful in the

process of application for EU funds, as within this procedure applicants need to prove

that their projects contribute to the achievement of strategic development goals.

However, there is no formal requirement to adopt local development strategies at

municipal or council level.

Only regional self-government (voivodship) is obliged to adopt long-term development

strategy aimed at enhancing economic activities, raising competitiveness and

innovation in regional economy. The strategy needs to be adopted by law-making body

of the regional self-government and it includes diagnosis of the socio-economic

situation of the region and the strategic objectives of the development policy for the

region. It also determines the actions to be taken by the voivodship, aimed at the

achievement of strategic objectives of the development policy. The particular goals of

the strategy are subsequently transformed into actions specified in regional operational

and development programmes. Their implementation is based primarily on the EU

funds transferred to the voivodship by the central government according to territorial

contract concluded by the central government and regional authorities.

IV. Methodologies and forms of planning in Poland (different territorial and

sectoral focuses).

Methodology of planning is set by the National Strategy of Regional Development 2010-

2020: Regions, Cities, Rural Areas (NSRD). It introduces the four dimensions of a

development policy. They accordingly specify the goals of regional policy, define a new

approach towards management of regional development, create reference basis for the

eight other national public development policies and offers chief instruments of

implementation of the strategy.

The achievement of growth, employment and cohesion remains the strategic long-term

goal of Poland’s regional policy. It is composed of three specific goals:

rising the regional competitiveness;

building up the territorial cohesion;

creating the environment conducive to the territorial growth actions based on

effectiveness, efficiency and partnership.

Chart 4. Directions of Intervention within the Goals of the NSRD 2010-2020

Source: National Strategy of Regional Development (synthesis), p. 14.

All of these goals have to be achieved via introducing a new approach towards

managing of regional development strategies at all territorial levels. This approach

assumes:

reinforcement of an uniform national regional policy which defines common

territorial tasks for each public entity;

decentralization;

horizontal attitude;

reinforcement of the function of the voivodship so as to promote development

processes by means of the multi-level governance;

functional attitude towards different types of areas.

Cohesion

What? Using of strong potentials and

extending them to low ones.

To whom? Territories with the

strongest ability to create growth,

lower cities, rural areas, functional

areas with a distinct specialtization

What? Enhancing of a strategic

dimension; improvement of a

quality of management; more cooperation and activities.

What? Overpassing development difficulties

To whom? Territories with

the lowest factors of

development

Competitiveness

Efficiency

The Territorial Contracts serve as a mean of an agreement between the government and

the voivodship regarding the course of actions to complete the goals of the NSRD at all

levels of self-government.

Chart 5. Territorial Contract in Practice

-

Source: „Territorial Contract”, Office of the Zachodniopomorskie Voivodship, p. 4

Since the self-government of the voivodship is responsible for achieving the goals of

regional policy, it acts as a coordinator of adequate activities undertaken by all the

actors involved. The sectoral programmes are performed in response to the needs of the

particular region. They are agreed within the framework of the Territorial Contract,

along with the goals specified by the National Strategy 2010-2010.

The Analysis of Potentials and Weaknesses of Voivodships

16 ROP’s

National Programmes

16 Regional Contracts

Framework Contract Partnership Agreement

Goals

Indicators

Money

Goals

Indicators

Money

Goals

Indicators

Money

Goals

Indicators

Money

Goals

Indicators

Money

V. Practical examples of planning in V4 countries. Good and bad practices,

lessons learned

In general, the practice of local and regional strategic planning in Poland might be

perceived as a good example of the use of planning to improve development policies.

Particular source of good practices is the functioning of Local Action Groups

coordinating, in the multiple stakeholders formula, the development policies for rural

areas (see below). What is more, the practice of regional planning seems to be well

established. Voivodships acquired leading role in the national development policy.

Thanks to huge support from the EU funds they have the capacity to transform their

strategic development goals into practice. It should be also underlined that voivodships

enjoy high level of autonomy in formulation and implementation of regional

development policies. They are not subordinated to the central government neither in

setting the development goals nor in distribution of funds.

However, there are at least two factors negatively affecting the quality of local and

regional development policies:

Low level of public participation in the formulation and implementation of the

development strategies. In case of regional strategies, public consultation is

required by law. However, there are no specific rules guaranteeing participatory

character of the policy formulation process. In practice, external stakeholders are

included into the planning process only at the final stage and have no right to

influence it significantly.

Instrumental character of strategic planning. Particularly at the level of

municipalities, local development strategies are often adopted only in order to

facilitate absorption of the EU funds. In the perception of the local authorities

they are not useful as a major guide to their policies. Another consequence of this

approach is a lack of the regular monitoring and evaluation of the progress in the

implementation of strategic goals and a lack of the public debate in this matter

VI. The role of Local Action Groups in V4 countries

In Poland, the Local Action Groups (LAGs) play a significant role in the

implementation of the Rural Development Programme. The number of LAGs in Poland

is the highest in the European Union–currently there are more than 300 groups. Their

area of operation covers more than 80 percent of all rural areas in the country. LAGs is

a model of partnership and cooperation between various partners and stakeholders of

local development policy. They bring together representatives of local public

administration, business, cooperative and non-governmental organizations. They are

cross-sectoral coalitions to develop a specific territory (rural areas), which prepare their

own development strategies, are the beneficiaries of development funds and

institutions responsible for the distribution of grants awarded to local projects. LAGs

not only develop local strategies for development, but more importantly, may apply for

specific financial support for their implementation. LAGs are beneficiaries of many EU

projects related not only to agriculture but also tourism, environment and

infrastructure. In the new financial perspective of the European Union they are likely to

remain an important part of the rural development policy.

See also: Report on LAGs in Poland prepared by the Polish Ministry of Agriculture,

http://ksow.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/ksow.pl/grafika/LEADER/LAG_Catalogue.pdf.

Strategic planning: Hungary experience

I. Teritorial system and administrative structure of Hungary

Hungary is a landlocked, predominantly flat country, with more than four-fifths of its

terrain at elevations below 656 feet (200 meters). It covers an area of 93,030 square

kilometers (35,919 square miles). It is situated in the Carpathian Basin and is bordered

by Slovakia to the north, Ukraine and Romania to the east, Serbia and Croatia to the

south, Slovenia to the southwest and Austria to the west. Its population is 9,877,365 (1

January 2014).

Map 5. Hungary and its major cities

The land rises into hills and some low mountains in the north along the Slovakian

border. The highest point, located in the Matra Hills, is Mt Kekes at 3,330 ft (1,015m).

The Danube is the major river, as it divides the country almost in half, and is navigable

within Hungary for 418 km. Hungary has three major lakes. Lake Balaton, the largest at

78 km long and from 3 to 14 kn wide, has an area of 592 sq km. It's central Europe’s

largest freshwater lake.About 70% of the country’s total territory is suitable for

agriculture; of this portion, 72% is arable land.

Public administration functions are performed by two large categories of institutions:

the hierarchical public administration directed by the government and organised with a

top-down approach, on a territorial basis, and the local governments organised on the

local level (municipal and territorial), directed by elected bodies. The various categories

of local governments are not subordinated to one another. In addition to state

administration and local government administration bodies, public administration

functions – with the exception of legislation – may also be performed by non-public-

administration organs, such as public bodies, public foundations, non-profit

associations as well as private persons or, exceptionally, natural persons as well.

Under the new Constitution of 1949 and the Council Act of 1950, Hungary was

reorganised from 25 counties and one capital city to 19 counties and a capital city.

NUTS and LAU classifications are also applied in Hungary, there are 174 statistical sub-

regions (LAU1) and 3152 settlements (LAU2) in the country (Eurostat). The NUTS

territorial structure of Hungary is based on a combination of traditional (county) and

novel (region) levels.

Table 2. Territorial structure of Hungary according to NUTS classification

NUTS 1 Code NUTS 2 (Region) Code NUTS 3 (County)

Central Hungary

HU1

Central Hungary

HU10

Budapest

Pest

Transdanubia

HU2

Central Transdanubia

HU21

Fejér

Komárom-Esztergom

Veszprém

Western Transdanubia

HU22

Győr-Moson-Sopron

Vas

Zala

Southern

Transdanubia

HU23

Baranya

Somogy

Tolna

Great Plain and

North

HU3

Northern Hungary

HU31

Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén

Heves

Nógrád

Northern Great Plain

HU32

Hajdú-Bihar

Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok

Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg

Southern Great Plain

HU33

Bács-Kiskun

Békés

Csongrád

Map 6. NUTS 2 level units (regions) in Hungary

Source: Hungarian Central Statistic Office

II. Institutional framework and the role of planning in Hungary

The institutional framework of strategic programming has been significantly changed

compared to the programming period 2007-2013. There are new actors, processes,

tendencies and legal documents. One of the most important changes is the re-allocation

of the sectorial competences to the ministries starting from programming through

implementation and ending by monitoring activities (instead of the formally centralised

National Development Agency).

The most important actors in strategic planning

Based on Government Regulation 1221/2012 (VII. 2), the Governmental Committee of

National Development (NFK) was created by the Government in order to make the

development of government policy decisions efficient, well-founded and to coordinate

decision-making. The NFK’s president is the Prime Minister and the permanent invited

members are the State Secretary for the Prime Minister’s Office, the Minister of National

Economy and the Minister of National Development.

The National Governmental Committee of National Development tasks were specified

in Government decree 140/2012 (VII. 2). The tasks include:

making proposals for the Government related to the tasks of development and

planning, especially for the 2014-2020 financial period related tasks, the

development of budgetary resources necessary for the use of government

measures to support the use of the necessary institutional system design and

operation, and this topic is appropriate regulation;

deciding on the operational programs and the adoption, amendment of the

Action Plans;

deciding on major projects and proposals to be submitted to the EC;

making decisions about individual flagship and prioritized projects.

The new strategies will provide answers for the challenges of the 2014-2020

development policy period. ONEP (Office for National Economic Planning)

overviewed domestic and international policy strategies; analysed trends and

challenges affecting the future; proposed objectives for national development and

regional development and regional development interventions; the development of

cities and agglomerations as a priority; improved the relations of cities and rural areas.

The Office for National Economic Planning (ONEP) is one of the most important think-

tank of regional and urban policy as well as of evaluation and planning of regional

development and development policy in Hungary. Its activities include spatial analysis,

monitoring and evaluation of current economic, social and environmental processes; as

well as programme evaluations, regional and development planning and programming

on strategic and operative levels. The colleagues of the Office coordinate planning

processes on national level that includes several actors. There are several national and

international (EU, Visegrad Four/Visegrad Group) planning and evaluation actions in

which the Institute is involved. Their main topics are the renewal of the National

Development and Territorial Development Concept (NDTC) and the professional tasks

related to the Act on Territorial Development; developing strategic analyses and

recommendations on the use of EU funds; economic strategic programming;

participation in international regional and rural development research projects (Office

for National Economic Planning).

To promote the social, economic and regional development and the quality of

environment in Hungary, after several negotiations among ministries, county councils,

local governments of cities with county rights and of Budapest, public consultation,

Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) and ex ante evaluation the NDTC was

brought to the committees of the Parliament in November-December 2013 and the

Parliament made a decision on the Concept by approving the Parliament Decision

1/2014 (I.3).

III. Regulatory framework and incentives of strategic planning in Hungary

In line with the EU level processes the regulatory frameworks of the Member States

were adopted to the Community level regulations. Some regulations were modified;

some of them were replaced by new regulations. In case of Hungary the most important

national level laws and regulations on strategic programming are the followings:

• Law XXI/1996 on Territorial development (several amendments, latest one in

2014)

• Law CLXXXIX/2011 on the Hungarian local municipalities

• Regulation 1600/2012. (XII.17.) on 2014-2020 planning and task division

• Regulation 1115/2013. (III.8.) on the territorial units and role of the counties

• Regulation 1322/2013. (VI. 12.) on decision-making and responsibilities

• Regulation 1/2014 on the National Development and Territorial Development

Concept

There are several other regulations and decisions (altogether 9) on the county and local

level strategic planning processes too setting the rules for 2014-2020.

The Partnership Agreement (PA) with the European Commission s another basic

document for strategic programming. It was adopted by the EC in August 2014 setting

down the strategy for the optimal use of European Structural and Investment Funds

throughout the country. The PA is covering €21.9 billion total Cohesion Policy funding

over 2014-2020 (current prices, including European Territorial Cooperation funding and

the allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative). Hungary also receives €3.45 billion

for rural development and €39 million for fisheries and the maritime sector.

IV. Methodologies and forms of planning in Hungary (different territorial and

sectorial focuses)

The strategic planning of territorial development of the country has to be coordinated

cross different institutions (ministries, regional authorities, municipalities, NGOs,

private sector, universities) and different levels (national, regional and local). In

Hungary, the responsible for planning is the Minister of National Development. The

methodologies and forms of planning are declared in the National Development and

Territorial Development Concept (NDTC). Principles of the document are:

- Subsidiarity and decentralization;

- Regional and landscape approach;

- System approach, programming, integrated development

- Efficiency and concentration;

- Sustainability, safety;

- Public partnership;

- Transparency, monitoring and evaluation.

Institutional framework and decision-making 2014-2020

The number of the Operational Programmes (OP) has been significantly reduced (9)

compared to the last period (2007-2013) and there is only one OP dedicated to

Territorial and Settlement Development for all the 7 regions instead of 1 per region. The

competences of the responsible ministries cover the whole process in an integrated way

and the Managing Authorities and Intermediary Bodies and their functions are also

delegated to the ministries as it is summarised in table below.

Table 3. Operational Programmes and Responsible Institutions

OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME (OP) Responsible for planning and

implementation

GINOP Economic Development and

Innovation Ministry for National Economy

TOP Territorial and Settlement Development Ministry for National Economy

VEKOP Competitive Central Hungary Ministry for National Economy

EFOP HR Development Ministry for Human Capacities

KEHOP Environment & Energy Efficiency Ministry for National Development

IKOP Intelligent Transport Ministry for National Development

VP Rural Development Ministry for Rural Development

MAHOP Hungarian Fishery Development Ministry for Rural Development

KOP Coordination Prime Minister’s Office

Source: Own contribution

Table 4. Scheme integrated approach on strategic programming

Source: Development of Hungary 2030 – National Development and Territorial Development

Concept

V. Practical examples in Hungary: good and bad practices, learned lessons

The methodological paradigm shift in development policy results the emergence of new

development directions and instruments both on EU and member state level. These

instruments are among others the introduction of smart specialisation objectives, the

performance framework and the strict methodology of the strategic programming

process in case of the Operational Programmes and the Partnership Agreement. As

regards Hungary, development centre and growth zone are new concepts that even

professionals find challenging to define properly. Several lessons can also be learned

from the success stories and failures of the previous programming period. The main

methodological differences between the two programming periods based on the

experiences are summarised in table below.

Table 5. Methodological differences in strategic programming

2007-2013 2014-2020

Programming

framework

Division between Structural Funds and

rural development

National Strategic and Reference

Framework

Integrated Programming

EU level Common Strategic Framework

(4 funds in a unified framework – EU2020)

National level frameworks (PAs)

Thematic focuses 16 Operational Programmes 9 Operational Programmes,

Priorities Economic development (16%)

Employment is a social question

Economic development (60%)

Employment is included!

Institutional

framework

Centralised system (NDA)

Regional deconcentration (RDAs)

Decentralised system with central

coordination (PM’s Office+MAs at

ministries)

Subsidy schemes Red-tape, administration, obligations,

non-refundable subsidies, combined

micro-loan

Red-tape reduction, central coordination,

also refundable financial means (10%),

dedicated projects and financial means to

the public sector, additionally to calls for

proposals: normative subsidies, global

grants

Local cooperation

tools

LEADER-Community Initiative

Local Action Groups

CLLDs

ITIs

Territorial

aspects

Regional Ops (7), regional level (NUTS2)

is the programming level

1 Territorial and Settlement Development

OP

County (NUTS3), city, micro-region and

CLLD

Central Hungary Phasing-out region Developed region – significantly less

subsidies

As a good practice a local level initiative connected to strategic planning and local

economic development (LED) is presented in the following part:

Good practice 1: Local Strategic Programming Initiative on Economic Development

The initiative was generated by local actors in 2011 in order to set clear priorities and

flagship projects as preconditions for FDI (foreign direct investment) attraction and

employment generation in one of the most disadvantaged areas of Hungary. The local

actors generated the establishment of a local Steering Committee and a Partnership

Forum with the clear aim to elaborate an Action Plan with flagship projects. The

methodology was similar to the traditional strategic programming process but there

were some differences, among others the massive participation of the local economic

actors in the whole process. Altogether more than 40 projects were generated out of

which 10 flagship projects were elaborated in the form of an Action Plan. The duration

of the process was nearly 18 months and in May 2013, the programing document

“Creating attractive business environment in Miskolc” was accepted by the Partnership

Forum. The programming document formed the basis of the local and county level

strategic programming process for 2014-2020 and also positioned the City and put it

into the spotlight of the national development policy as in 2013 the Hungarian

Government awarded Miskolc and its agglomeration with the Special Development

Centre status. Participants of the Partnership Forum are:

- County Government - City Government (City with County Rank) - University - Applied Research Institute - Chamber of Commerce - Multinational company - Regional clusters - National ministries

The programming document’s relevance to the

other regional, national and EU level documents

and its position in the programming structure is

summarised on Table 5.

As a result we can conclude that several projects

are under implementation and some others are

specified as prioritized developments from ESIF

for 2014-2020.

Table 6. Programming environment and interconnectedness of the TOP-10 document

Source: Creating attractive business environment in Miskolc

VI. The role of Local Initiative Groups in Hungary

The EU LEADER initiative has been running for 20 years and plays an important role in

the development of European rural areas; however, in countries joining the EU after

2004 it is still a relatively new phenomenon. In Hungary, for example, the LEADER+

programme was launched in 2005 with an experimental phase (called a „LEADER type

initiative“) and has developed to be a fully applied EU programme only in the current

programming period. The LEADER Programme is designed to support local businesses,

farmers, foresters, community groups, those involved in tourism and a range of rural

enterprises. The Local Action Groups (LAG) are in place to see that the money is spent

on the projects of greatest local priority as laid out in the Local Development Strategy

(LDS). The Local Action Group is a team of professionals who are actively involved in

the rural economy or community who are able to bring their expertise to help decide on

the priorities of the LEADER area. The members of the LAG are often farmers, foresters

or those working for other rural organizations however each person attends the

committee as individuals not representatives. The LAG acts as a board of governors

overseeing the delivery of grants to the right places and the monitoring of grants for the

future. The Local Action Group also has sub committees specializing in marketing,

finance and other aspects. There is a trained section of the LAG who sits on an

"approval panel" and makes the final decision on the acceptability of the projects

weighing them against priorities for the rural area and other competitive projects.

The Local Action Groups in Hungary faced diverse challenges concerning human,

social, physical and financial capital, networks and social learning. The roles of the

LAGs within the social, economic and cultural context of given areas are examined

through Lukesch’s (2007) model FOG – forms of governance. The model is a tool to

explore the interrelationships, local partnerships, local needs and local socio-cultural

environment. The results of the FOG test show that the prevailing mode of governance

in the examined LAGs emphasises animation actions as important elements of

operation. Although the importance of animation actions is underlined by the result of

the test, their presence between the initiatives is less than it should be. Finally the role of

Universities in animation actions is emphasised and closer relation of them with RD

networks is called for.

Map 7. LEADER Action Groups 2006

Researchers have shown that in Hungary the importance of social animation was not

sufficiently recognised by the management authority and/or by some of the LAGs.

Thus, the development and professionalization of formal institutions has diverged from

the organic development of local development capacity, skills and social networks. All

this is now clearly creating great difficulties and dysfunction in the system of

Hungarian rural development. If social animation is not taken more seriously, social

networks, local participation, and the culture of co-operation and making decisions are

not improved through a clear, strategic approach, then we cannot hope to head towards

an improved system of rural development in Hungary. A significant change in the

approach of the Ministry and other central institutions is difficult to imagine in

Hungary. Centralised management and decision making, and the weak application of

multi-level governance are likely to persist and use up much of the available resources.

However, if even small amounts of money for networking, co-operation, and social

learning in LEADER are made available, then this can release external capacity and

resources (research budgets, other EU programmes, volunteer efforts, etc.).

Strategic planning: Slovak Republic experience

I. Territorial system and administrative structure in Slovakia

Slovak Republic is the smallest country from V4 countries with the total area of 49

035,56 km2 (approx. half of Moldavian territory) and 5,4 mil. inhabitants (2013). It is

located in the heart of Europe with borders with Poland on the north, Ukraine on the

east, Hungary and Austria on the south and Czech Republic on the west (map).

Map 8. Territorial division of Slovak Republic

The most of the country can be characterised as mountainous with 41% of forested land,

the south and south-east of the country is covered by highly fertile land used for

agricultural purposes. Geomorphologic conditions of the country influenced strongly

the nowadays composition of regions and their socio-economic performance as well as

their main problems they have to deal with. Cohesion policy as well as Rural

Development Policy are devoted to help to solve these problems and to enhance the

development in regions.

Table 7. Territorial structure of Slovakia according to NUTS classification

The level of NUTS Territory

Regional levels NUTS I Slovak Republic

NUTS II 4 aggregated regions: Bratislavský kraj (BASK),

Western Slovakia (TNSK, TTSK, NRSK) Middle

Slovakia (BBSK, ZASK) Eastern Slovakia(POSK, KESK)

NUTS III 8 regions (Bratislavský (BASK), Trnavský (TTSK),

Trenčiansky (TNSK), Nitriansky (NRSK), Žilinský

(ZASK), Banskobystrický (BBSK), Prešovský (POSK),

Košický region (KESK)

LAU 1 79 districts

Local levels LAU 2 2890 municipalities

- 138 towns (2013)

From the administrative point of view, Slovakia has on the regional and local level self-

governments; on the NUTS III level (regions) are 8 Higher Territorial Units and on the

LAU 2 level (municipalities) are 2890 local self-governments. Aggregated regions were

formally created for the purpose of the implementation of EU policies. Current state can

be characterised as fragmented, with the high proportion of small municipalities. More

than 67% of municipalities are municipalities with less than 1000 inhabitants with 16%

of population living in.

II. Institutional framework and the role of planning in V4 countries

Cohesion Policy and Rural Development Policy are the most important policies from

the territorial development point of view. For the successful implementation of the

Cohesion Policy and Rural Development Policy, these institutions are involved together

with their main responsibilities:

Institution Main responsibilities

Ministry of Transport, Construction and

Regional Development of SR

Central coordination authority for Cohesion Policy

implementation

Coordinating body for Regional Policy in SR,

Partnership Agreement

MA for OP* Integrated Infrastructure

Ministry of Education, Science, Research and

Sport of SR

MA for OP Research and Innovations

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Family

of SR

MA for OP Human Resources

Ministry of Environment of SR MA for OP Quality of Environment

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural

Development of SR

Responsible for implementation of Rural

Development Policy

MA for OPs: Integrated Regional OP; Rural

Development Program; Fishery OP

Ministry of Interior of SR MA for OP Effective Public Administration

Government Office of SR MA for OP Technical Assistance

Source: Managing Authority for Operational Programme

There is a need for the strategic planning at different levels and the coordination of

these strategies. In Slovakia the structure of planning documents is as follows:

NSRD of SR (2010) is the strategic document identifying the main problems and factors

of development of 8 regions of Slovakia. On the regional level, each HTU is preparing

their own strategic document (PSED of HTU) and on the local level, municipalities are

preparing PSED for the coordinating of their territory. Partnership Agreement together

with Operation Programs and Rural Development Program allow the use of resources

from EU and are helping to implement the priorities set up in NSRD of SR.

National Strategy of Regional

Development of SR (NSRD)

Program of Socio-Economic

Development of

Microregions

Program of Socio-Economic

Development (PSED) of the

HTU

Program of Socio-Economic

Development of the Municipality

Rural Development

Program Partnership Agreement

+ Operation Programmes

National level

Regional level

Local level

III. Regulatory framework and incentives of strategic planning in V4 countries

Strategic planning in Slovakia is implemented in accordance with the Act No. 539/2008

coll. on the Support of Regional Development as amended which provides the a general

framework for regional development policy in Slovakia; the acts stipulates the

objectives and conditions for support of regional development, regulates the

competence of state administration, self-governing regions, municipalities and other

entities of territorial cooperation and the conditions for coordination and

implementation of regional development. Providing support of the European Union by

EU funds is governed by other regulations.

The act establishes a partnership approach between government and stakeholders to

ensure that regional development is focused on:

- eliminating or mitigating undesirable disparities in the level of economic

development, social development and territorial development of regions and

ensuring sustainable development of regions;

- increasing the economic performance and competitiveness of regions and promoting

innovation in the regions with a view to ensure their sustainable development;

- raising employment and standard of living.

Support of regional development is performed according to:

a) National Strategy of Regional Development of the Slovak Republic

b) Program of Socio-Economic Development of HTU,

c) Program of Socio-Economic Development of the Municipality and the

Microregion.

The Act stipulates the competence of all stakeholders; the act defines Euroregion as a

subject of support of cross-border cooperation and established the Integrated Network

of Regional Development Agencies.

IV. Methodologies and forms of planning in V4 countries (different territorial and

sectorial focuses)

The strategic planning of territorial development of the country has to be coordinated

cross different institutions (ministries, regional authorities, municipalities, NGOs,

private sector, universities) and different levels (national, regional and local). In

Slovakia, the regional development is planned at national level by the Ministry of

Transport, Construction and Regional Development of SR (MTCRD) and at regional

level by 8 Higher Territorial Units (HTU). The strategic planning on different levels in

Slovakia is independent but strategies should correlate. PSED of municipalities have to

correlate with the PSED of microregion and PSED of HTU as well as PSED of HTU with

the NSRD. Except these territorial strategies, they have to correlate also with other

sectoral strategies (like National Reforms Program of SR 2013, Research and Innovation

Strategy for Smart Specialisation, program Efficient, Reliable and Open Government,

Strategy of Tourism Development 2020; on regional and local levels – territorial plans,

waste management plans etc.).

The top-down approach was used for the preparation of NSRD and to plan the

implementation of EU policies (when Partnership Agreement together with OPs are

prepared by country according to EU regulations) and the bottom-up approach is used

for the preparation of PSEDs on all levels. Actors from all sectors (private, public, third

sector) are cooperating within the preparation of all strategic documents. Each level

(national, regional, local) needs the specific way of cooperation (e.g. on national or

regional level, expert groups or commenting processes are common, on local level

rather group working of representatives of stakeholders is used and principles of

CLLD). Together, the integrated approach is presented (as can be seen in the scheme).

Source: adopted from Faziková, 2012

European

Commision

National

government

Ministries

Universities,

Research centres

Regional

governments (HTU)

Expert public

institutions

Employers and their unions

Enterpreneurs

NGOs, expert organisations

Top

– d

ow

n a

pp

roac

h

Bo

tto

m –

up

ap

pro

ach

CLLD

enterpreneurs

NGOs

Local

gov.

CLLD

enterpreneurs

NGOs

Local

gov.

CLLD

enterpreneurs

NGOs

Local

gov.

V. Practical examples of planning in V4 countries: good and bad practices,

lessons learned

We can see a lot of good as well as bad practises of planning in Slovakia, especially on

local level. I would present one good example of the Local Action Group (LAG) LEV

and a bad practise or rather I would like to highlight the problem of high fluctuation of

people working for the implementation agencies.

Very important for any local development is the establishment of the partnership. One

site is the formal establishment of the partnership (which is administratively quite easy)

but for the real work, the informal relationships and ties is much more time and effort

demanding. Just partnership with strong ties and social network can be successful. The

case can be seen in LAG LEV (maslev.sk) with 31 municipalities and other 52 members

from private (agriculture, tourism, services, local craftwork, construction etc.), public

(schools) and third sector (NGOs, folk groups, activists, tourism associations etc.). LAG

was created in 2008 after the previous cooperation and members worked together to

prepare the Integrated Strategy for Rural Development with these priorities:

1. HEALTHY MIND AND THE SOUL OF PROSPERITY

2. WE WILL NOT LEAVE OUR SOURCES UNUSED

3. WIN IN OUR REGIONS THROUGH COLLECTIVE GAMES

4. STAY IN THE COUNTRYSIDE – IT IS BEAUTIFUL PLACE

The LAG after 5 years of implementation of their strategy is well-known for their

tourism activities that help to promote the area and people living in like Magical World

of Traditions; Cyclopath, Touristic Passport, Festival of wine and honey, Day of milk, Folk on a

scene..etc. Except of these promotion activities they support the building of private

accommodations, traditional products production, also they are organisers of the

LeaderFest about the approach Leader. The LAG has helped or financially supported

almost 200 projects in their area.

Since the beginning of the implementation of EU policies (2004), there were problems

with the quality and quantity of implementation managers at implementation agencies.

Their responsibilities are shortly to take care of projects supported by EU funds (since

consultations of proposals to the finishing of the project realisation). At the beginning

(shorten period 2004 – 2006), there was a problem with the quantity, when in some

resorts one manager had to deal with 72 projects in realisation at the same time. This

meant prolonging of processing of requests for payments which led to prolong of

project realisation or sometimes even to failure of realisation. The problem of quantity

was solved but other problem occurred – the problem with the high fluctuation of

employees and so the quality of implementation managers. Often, a person working in

implementation agency after 1 - 2 years of practise is leaving the public administration

for higher income in consulting agencies. This way the implementation agency is losing

money for training and what is worst, skilled labour source. This problem is tried to be

solved since the period 2007 – 2013 by the proper career development programs and

other actions.

VI. The role of local action groups

Local action groups are public-private partnerships, which are represented by local

communities, entrepreneurs, public administration, agriculture and forestry

organizations, young people, women and other important stakeholders at the local

level. The condition is that representatives of the private sector (including NGOs)

represented for at least 50% of the partnership. Local Action Group establishes as an

informal partnership of key public and private sector working in the area. The

partnership must be registered as a civil association (Act No. 83/1990 Coll. on

Association of Citizens as amended). In Slovakia is currently approved 29 LAGs; list of

approved LAGs is available at: < http://nsrv.sk/index.php?pl=18&article=34>

Scheme Approved Local Action Groups in Slovakia

Source: National Rural development Network Slovakia. 2014

The role of LAG is:

- coordinating the preparation of local development strategies in accordance with the

Programme of Rural Development defines the final beneficiaries and eligible

activities renewal and development of the territory.

- develop criteria for selection of projects in accordance with the guidelines of the

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development of SR (Managing Authority).

Criteria for selection of projects are part of the strategy.

- implementation of local development strategies; the strategy is submitted to the

Managing Authority within the deadline set in the call. If the strategy is supported,

LAG launched a call for projects, establish a Selection committee to select projects on

the basis of the criteria set out in the strategy. Subsequently Agricultural Paying

Agency enters into a contract with the final beneficiaries of successful projects.

- update and review of local development strategies.

- management of the action of the local action groups and organizing meetings.

- financial management.

Strategic planning: Czech Republic experience

I. The formal governmental structure

Map 9. Administrative arrangement of Czech Republic Regions (14), Municipalities

with extended competence (206)

Local governments

The Czech Republic has 10,2 million inhabitants. These inhabitants live in altogether

6249 municipalities (obec). The size of these local governments varies extensively, from

very small ones, having only 200-500 inhabitants or less to the capital city of Prague

with approximately 1,18 million inhabitants. According to the data released by the

Czech Statistical Office, in 2006 25,8% of the local governments had 200 inhabitants or

less, whereas only 22 had more then 50 000 (0,4%). Besides the marked unevenness in

size, there is an unevenness in their dispersion, with a lot of small municipalities –

having 500 inhabitants or less – concentrating in Western Moravia and Southern

Bohemia. Municipal local governments represent the NUTS5 level in the Czech

administrative system. The Czech Constitution, in article 99 calls them the fundamental

territorial selfgoverning bodies. In accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, these

local governments enjoy a lot of freedom and have a wide range of responsibilities in

almost all aspects of local life.

The most important of these competences and responsibilities include:

− Municipal budget

− Local development

− Agriculture and forest management

− Municipal police

− Water supply and public sewerage

− Municipal waste

− Primary education

− Housing

− Social services

− Spatial planning

− Cooperation with other municipalities and regions

− Municipal public transport

Each municipality is administered by the Municipal Assembly; other bodies of the

municipality are the Municipal Council, the Mayor and the Municipal Authority. In a

city, the function of the Municipal Assembly is to be performed by the City Assembly;

other bodies of the city are the City Council, the Lord Mayor and the City Authority.

The municipal council (zastupitelstvo obce) is composed of members elected by universal

and direct suffrage for a four-year term. This assembly appoints the members of the

municipal committees which are deliberative bodies for the municipal council. The

council consists of 5-55 counsellors, proportionate to the size of the municipality

The municipal board (rada obce) is composed of members elected by and within

themunicipal council for a four-year term. The mayor and vice-mayors are always

members of the municipal board. This executive body can form specific commissions

which aredeliberative or executive bodies for the municipal board. The board consists

of 5-11 persons.

The mayor (starosta) or lord mayor (primátor) is elected by and within the municipal

council for a four-year term. The mayor heads the municipal board and administration

and represents the municipality. In municipalities with fewer than 15 councillors, the

mayor ensures the executive authority by himself.

A special case of local self administration is represented by the statutory cities.

Statutory cities are granted extended execution of transferred competence by the state

administration due to their size, economic, cultural and social importance. In a statutory

city, the function of the Municipal Assembly is to be performed by the City Assembly;

other bodies of the statutory city are the City Council, the Lord Mayor and the City

Authority. In statutory cities which are divided into city areas or city districts, each city

area or city district shall have its own Assembly; other bodies of a city area are the City

Area Council, the Mayor and the City Area Authority; other bodies of a city district are

the City District Council, the Mayor and the City District Authority. Statutory cities

divided in this manner have to arrange their internal relations by means of a generally

binding regulation (constitution). The following cities have a special statutory status in

the Czech Republic: Kladno, Ceské Budejovice, Plzen, Karlovy Vary, Ústí nad Labem,

Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Jihlava, Brno, Zlín, Olomouc, Ostrava, Opava,

Havírov and Most.

Multi-level government structure

The second cornerstone of the Czech local administration and territorial self

government

is the region (kraj). Article 99 of the Constitution calls them superior self-governing

territorial divisions. These higher territorial self governing units were introduced into

the system in 2001 in accordance with the European principles of self government and

decentralization. There are altogether 14 such regions covering the whole territory of

the Czech Republic, they represent the NUTS3 level of the Czech administration. The

size of the regions varies, the smallest one, the Karlovarský region having

approximately 304 000 inhabitants in 2006, whereas the largest one, the

Moravskoslezský region having approximately 1,25 million inhabitants.

The most important bodies of the region are the regional assembly and the regional board:

The regional assembly (zastupitelstvo kraje) is composed of members who are elected by

universal, equal and direct suffrage for a four-year term. It monitors the regional budget

and subventions given to municipalities. It can also submit draft laws to the House of

Representatives.

The regional board (rada kraje) is the executive body of the region. It is composed of a

chief executive officer of the regional authority (hejtman) and vice-chiefs. Together with

the other members of the regional board they are elected by and within the regional

assembly for a four-year term. The board is the executive body can be assisted by

regional

services (krajský urad) headed by a director.

Most important competences of the regions include:

− Secondary education

− Road networks

− Social services

− Environment

− Regional public transport

− Regional development

− Health

− Founding regional companies

− Regional budget

Among the regions a special case is represented by Prague, which is both a municipality

and region with only one assembly and one board. Prague is divided in metropolitan

districts. Each of them has its own elected local councils. The assembly of the capital is

composed of members who are elected by universal and direct suffrage for a four-year

term. Councillors of the assembly appoint the lord mayor of the city as well as the

members of the executive municipal board of the city.

Above the regions one can find the cohesion regions, which form the NUTS2 level of the

Czech public administration. There are 8 of them, and unlike in case of the NUTS3 and

NUTS5 levels, an evenness can be observed among the distribution of their population.

All the regions have a population between 1,2 and 1,6 million inhabitants. These regions

are not territorial self governing bodies, rather their focus is territorial development.

NUTS4 level in the Czech administrative system is represented by the districts (okres).

There are 91 districts (76 and the 15 districts of Prague), which are solely administrative

districts with no self governing power whatsoever. The importance of districts

diminished after the introduction of regions in 2001, leading to their cessation by 2003.

Before that districts used to be an independent tier in the administrative system of the

Czech Republic, which served as an intermediate body of decentralization performing

some of the rights and duties of the Czech public administration. It was never elected

directly. Since 2003 its powers have diminished extensively and solely some state

administration on supra-local level is attached to the administrative districts.

The dynamic process

Two parallel processes can be observed in the field of Czech local administration: on the

one hand there is a marked shift towards more decentralization from the level of the

state, and on the other hand the slow strengthening of the regional – supra-local – level.

The two processes are indivisible and both processes are accentuated by the 2001

introduction of the regions and the gradual change of the district system. Formerly, the

supra local level was represented by the districts that were important administrative

centers, however were not self-governing bodies and were not directly elected. Their

function was replaced by that of the regions, which are not only elected directly, but

whose responsibilities are more far reaching than administration. The 14 regions that

have been created became self-governing territorial bodies. After 2003 the districts –

which were smaller units then the regions – have diminished greatly in significance, but

have retained some administrative significance. Nevertheless, it is important to note

that they have no responsibility in planning and development.

The government level deciding on land-use changes

There are four major authorities at three different levels of the Czech public

administration that are responsible for building and planning: they are the local

municipalities, the regional municipalities and on the level of the government the

Ministry for Regional Development and in special cases the Ministry of Defense. It is

the Building Act that creates the framework for the regulations of building, territorial

planning and land-use change. A new Building Act was passed in 2006 (183/2006) and

has been effective since January 2007.

According to the official communication of the Ministry for Regional development, the

reason behind the new Building Act “is strengthening legal security of citizens and

developers in proceedings…and enabling the municipalities and regions to make

decisions on development in their territories in mutual co-operation. The quite new

procedures and processes stipulated in the act, should contribute to this aim, above all.”

Besides these, a motivation behind the new Act was to enable municipalities and

regions to work in a closer cooperation with regard to territorial development. Another

basic legislation determining spatial planning and land-use changes in the Czech

republic is the Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic, which was passed as

a government decree in 2006. (561/2006). It is being revised and updated currently, in

compliance with the Building Act. This is a document that serves particularly for the

coordination of spatial development at the national level, and thus for the coordination

of the spatial planning activities of regions. The document The Spatial Development

Policy of the Czech Republic determines requirements for the concretization of the

spatial planning tasks in the national, international, supra-regional and cross-border

contexts, determines the strategy and basic conditions for fulfilling these tasks and

specifies the national priorities of spatial planning to ensure the area sustainable

development. In the Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic, there are also

delimitated the areas with higher requirements on change in the territory, the

importance of which surpasses the territory of one region, as well as equally significant

areas having specific values and specific problems and, further on, corridors and areas

for transport and technical infrastructures. In the framework created by the above

mentioned legislation, the main task of determining land-use and territorial

development rests with the local municipalities.

They are the authorities, who can issue – among other things – the permission to change

land use. However, the spirit of the Building Act suggests that supra-local self-

governing bodies – such as regional municipalities - should have a more influence in

determining territorial development. This however is an influence, which is restricted

for issues of regional importance, as they can intervene only in cases stipulated by the

law and of supra-local importance. At every instance they should proceed in

coordination with municipal authorities. Thus regional authorities, who are entrusted

with providing protection and value development of the region, have the function of

control. With regard to the RUR areas, it can be safely said that planning and territorial

development belongs to the local municipalities that are in most cases much smaller

then the RUR regions. In the Czech Republic there are 13 RUR areas in comparison to

the 6249 local municipalities and the 14 regions. The RUR areas are often similar,

sometimes are equivalent of the self-governing administrative regions – like in the case

of Karlovarsky kraj. However, in the most cases RUR areas function as territories

including an important city and its surroundings. These cities – with the exception of

Prague, which enjoys a special status – are all statutory cities.

II. Institutional planning and the role of planning in Czech Republic

Hierarchical Planning in Czech Republic

The essential principle of efficient hierarchical planning is setting of clear goals,

procedures, sources and control mechanisms, by which use it will be possible to take

such measures to achieve the set goal, if it differs from the plan. We can divide the set

goals on strategic, operational (tactical) and operational. According to them, we also

divide hierarchical levels of planning - strategic, tactical and operational, on which the

long-term, mid-term and short-term goals and tasks of work with the landscape are

gradually planned.

These hierarchical levels of planning are also influenced by the level of standards,

meaning legislation (see Figure).

Long-term time scale and extensive spatial limits are typical for strategic planning. The

objective was to create an idea which allows making necessary decisions about future to

achieve the set vision by the efficient and purposeful way. Tactical planning is mid-

term, on the level of middle-size regions, and its task is especially to fulfill the strategic

goals. Tactical planning should define tools, means and methods, where exact schedule

and order of activities, needed for achieving long-term goals, shall be defined (Boyland

2003, Reada, Lenderking 2004), and also connection of strategic and operational

management. Operational planning is short-term and on the lowest spatial level. It

solves how partial and short-term tasks will be fulfilled and directs strategic and tactical

goals.

The advantage of hierarchical planning is especially the reduction of high complexity of

solved topic, its division into several levels and this means also easier management of

unpredictable circumstances. Division into levels and gradual update and specification

of plans in time allows flexible reaction to unpredictable circumstances in the

surrounding environment.. This approach to landscape planning is not autotelic, but its

results should be reflected in the suitable landscape management and environment.

Hierarchical planning is a typical example of so-called “top-down“ approach, which is

more political and directive. On the other hand there is also so-called “bottom-up“

approach which is evoked by local needs.

Spatial Planning - Style of planning

The Czech Republic is characterized with style of planning as belonging to land use

planning category, however it was emphasized that it is not possible to create a clear-

cut characterization, and all countries are sharing a mix of approaches. With regard to

comprehensiveness – or the movement towards the comprehensive integrated approach

- it was found that in the Czech Republic there is cooperation horizontally, but very

little vertically. Planning styles have changed quite considerably during the last 18

years. In the first half of the 1990s, just after the political change, was characterised by a

minimalist involvement of governments in urban and regional development. The

decisions of both the central government as well as local politicians were grounded in a

neo-liberal approach, which saw free, unregulated market as the mechanism of

allocation of resources that would generate a wealthy, economically efficient and

socially just society. Politicians perceived the state and public regulations as the root of

principal harms to society and the economy in particular. Urban and regional planning

and policy was perceived as contradictory to the market. Short-term, ad hoc decisions

were preferred to the creation of basic rules of the game embedded in a long-term plan,

strategy or vision of development. Only towards the end of the 1990s, strategic plans of

cities and regional development attempted to formulate more complex views of urban

and regional development and governance. The local governments learned the main

principles of governance, policy and planning in democratic political system and

market economy. The physical planning system was kept in operation and thus helped

to regulate smoother development in cities. The procedures used in the EU significantly

impacted on urban and regional planning, policies and programmes including their

implementation and evaluation and urban governments now use benchmarking to

monitor and assess the results of their own policies.

Municipal governments have high autonomy concerning their own urban planning and

policies. After the turbulent transition years, some local governments are realising that a

long-term, holistic and complex vision of urban development can be a backbone for the

city stability and prosperity. In the decision-making processes, short-term, mostly

economic aspects usually outweigh strategic long-term considerations.

The reform of the planning system has not been completed yet, but the passing of the

new Building Act in 2006 and the Spatial Developmental Policy also in the same year

can be regarded as important steps. Still, the current situation is characterized by the

devolution of spatial planning powers to municipalities and weak regional planning.

Key institutions making planning policies in the Czech Republic

The powers of planning is entrusted by the Building Act to three major authorities: the

local municipal authorities, the regional authorities and Ministry of Regional

Development. (As a special case the Ministry of Defence can exercise the planning

rights over the military training areas). At the national level, the Ministry of Regional

Development is responsible for planning legislation. The background work is carried

out by the Institute for Spatial Development, which is directly managed by the Ministry.

Its field of work cover a large area, most importantly spatial planning, building

regulations, regional policy, housing and housing policy, programs of spatial

development, regeneration of settlements and their parts, tourism, care of historical

monuments and country renewal. It is also in charge of monitoring existing physical

plans of municipalities and the regions.

Municipality and region authorities execute the town and country planning activity as a

delegated authority Municipal governments have high autonomy and power

concerning their own territorial planning. This local level of public administration is the

most influential in territorial development. Regional authorities provide protection and

value development of a region. They can intervene in the municipality authority

activities only in the cases stipulated by law and only in hyper-local importance

matters.

On the municipal level the most important decision making institutions are the building

office and the planning office. In the sphere of town and country planning the building

office:

issues planning permissions, unless stipulated otherwise by the Building

Act, and planning approval,

provides information for procurement of planning materials or planning

documentation.

The planning office:

performs the position of affected administrative office in the planning

permission proceedings unless the office itself issues planning permission,

in delegated competence procures local plan, regulatory plan, planning

materials (planning study and planning analytical materials and

delimitation of the developed area.

Policy instruments, space-related plans on the different levels

The current legal framework for territorial development and planning is created by the

Building Act of 2006. This Act paved the way for the introduction of more

comprehensive planning in the Czech Republic, trying to foster strategic thinking and

regional cooperation of the different actors and sectors involved in territorial planning.

The recently introduced planning tools – such as the spatial development policies and

spatial development principles – also serve to create a more strategic territorial

planning system.

RUR related plans in more details

There is no planning on the level of RURs in the Czech Republic. Planning is carried out

on the regional and the local level, and closer to the RUR is the regional level. This level

is only interested in supra-local issues, by definition comprising cities, towns and

villages in itself. The Spatial Development Principle, created on this level and accepted

by the regional assembly is a binding document for any municipal plan – local and

regulatory - but most important land use issues – like the change of land use – are

nevertheless decided locally.

Spatial development principles set out basic requirements for efficient and economical

area organisation and determine areas or corridors of hyper-local importance, especially

for public works and set out requirements for their use. Sustainable development

impact assessment is also a part of spatial development principles.

Unlike the rest of the country, a special case is presented by Prague, which is not only a

city municipality but a region in itself. Consequently, the metropolitan area of Prague is

divided into more regional spatial development principles as the settlements around

Prague belong to a different region.

Case III. Practical examples of planning: good practices

1. Army Brownfields in the Czech Republic

The economic transition of the post communist countries resulted in spatial patterns,

lifestyles, and rapid values changes. International technical assistance and the EU

accession process have managed to provide needed know-how in many areas. But

spatial planning, land use and property management were deemed to fall within Czech

national subsidiarity. Luckily, technical assistance of early 1990’s has helped to restore

the Czech cadastral register, aiding thus both restitutions and privatization, and later

also surplus Czech army property transfers.

Over the past two decades, the structural changes taking place in the Czech society

have also affected the composition and size of the Czech army. Over the two decades,

the army has disposed of a large amount of its unused property to new owners. In the

period 2000-2008 these new owners were predominantly Czech local and regional

authorities. The army property was transferred to them for free, as a measure of

compensation for economic losses communities experienced due to army personnel

vacating them. Not all the transferred property was at that time brownfield land. But

after it was left empty for a few years, it quickly became so. For many local authorities

the transferred army real estate was a short-term “gift”, but a long-term liability.

This was because in general, local and the regional authorities were unused and

untrained to handle and manage property, reuse it or redevelop it. This is why the

majority of local authorities tried to materialise the value of their newly acquired real

estate by sale, when they themselves have no funds or know-how to develop. During

these disposal processes many authorities entered into various redevelopment

agreements, which may have not been directly to the advantage of their local electorate.

They also experienced fraud or became victims of broken promises. Finally, the transfer

of such a large amount real estate into the Czech market has dampened the market

(though it was at that time a rising one). But when these army properties were entering

the Czech real estate market in large volumes, the market was already plagued by

industrial and other institutional and agricultural brownfields (the estimated volume of

brownfield sites in the Czech republic is 10 000 +-2500, an actual count does not exist1).

It therefore became an Eldorado for property speculators, who have no immediate

intention in property reuse or redevelopment.

Despite that the army and its property needs have shrunk rapidly, the army real estate

disposal was slow to start. One of the reasons was the army resistance to reduce the size

of its empire; the other was the difficulties of the first transfers to the local communities.

These have demanded, in accordance with the national law2 that the free transfers to

local authorities had to be covered by a 10 year covenant, limiting the property resale

and use only to public bodies and facilities. Such conditions could not be at all fulfilled

by Czech towns, which are usually not large enough to accommodate such large

volumes of public uses. For example the town of Hodonín has 25,240 inhabitants and is

facing unfavourable demographic trends. There are 230 ha of built-up area in Hodonín

and the town now owns two separate army barracks with 28 ha of space and 41

buildings.

It took interpellation to the Czech parliament by the towns´ Mayors, who could see the

vacated army property amides their towns empty, slowly crumbling down. From mid-

2003 a new law3 was passed, which allowed the Ministry of Defence to transfer the

Czech army surplus property onto public bodies unconditionally until the end of 2007.

At the same time, some of the past disposals´ restrictive use covenants were also lifted.

But from the beginning of the 2008, any local authority acquiring surplus army real

estate needs to place an offer for it in an auction. As such a bid price has firstly to be

agreed by a local council in a public meeting, hence these local authorities may actually

not have much chance to acquire anything.

1 seehttp://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=21578

2 Law 219/2002 Sb and, the degree 62/2001 Sb, 219/2000 Sb 3 Law 174/2003 Sb

Especially, in case of larger property parcels, local authorities are now therefore losing

part of their chance to influence and steer these redevelopments towards future public

benefits. To help with the cost of preparing the redevelopment of the ex-army

properties, the Czech Ministry of Regional Development is running a modest grant

program from the year 2002 to cover the costs of development documentation and

infrastructure improvements of army brownfields transferred to local authorities. Local

authorities, other public vendors and also private owners which have acquired

properties from the Ministry of Defence can also apply to several funding streams in the

present round of Structural Funds (2007-2013), which support brownfield sites

regeneration. Local authorities planning and development powers, when used with

skills and foresight, are proving to be a very strong tool to aid redevelopment (see the

example the case study of town Uherské Hradiště).

Interest of Czech local governance in redevelopment

Many Czech local authorities initially failed to understand that brownfield sites

revitalization is a long-term process, which needs motivated public policies, clever

strategies and cooperation with local and regional stakeholders. Especially in places,

where the market is not too strong (that is a reality in the majority of Czech smaller

towns and communities). For more than a decade, some of the Czech local authorities

are trying to redevelop their ex-army property, but with limited result to date. For

example České Budějovice, Mladá Boleslav or Kroměříž are all towns with relatively

good market conditions, but their barracks are still “lingering”. Meanwhile, some of

these local authorities are passing planning decisions for mayor projects located

elsewhere, which actually compete with the ex-army Brownfields for their development

potential (often Greenfield shopping centres, entertainment and sports facilities est.).

This makes redevelopment of their brownfields harder, as it channels valuable

development opportunities away from them. Local authorities, which sold their ex-

army properties or have entered into various development partnerships, have often lost

control to steer their brownfield site development through good and bad times. Since

the crisis of 2008, most of these development agreements are failing to deliver.

Learning by example

During the last 2 years at the Czech MUNI University in Brno, various case studies

were compiled documenting the reuse of ex-army properties. From such case studies

and other resources, one can evaluate attributes for a successful army brownfield site

development. For a publically led development, it aspires that the key to a success is the

quality of local leadership. This is followed by an ability to produce a fast land-use

change, integrated programming and a mix of private and public finance. These apply,

even in not too prime locations. The other key factor appears to be the strength and the

integrity of local entrepreneurs, matched by a limited but well-focused public

investment. An early example of this are the ex Russian army barracks in town Nové

Mýto. For a successful commercial development the key attribute is however a location,

location and location. The Palladium4 shopping centre, right in the middle of Prague, is

a good example of a very intensified and profitable ex-army property redevelopment

(private developers). The other key attribute to a success in a case of privately lead

development is the quality of the partnership achieved between the project promoters

and the local authority (for an example the Waystone activities in town Stříbro5). Where

it works well, things can move fast.

By the time the massive army property transfers occurred, the brownfield issue in the

Czech Republic was starting to be understood. The Czech law was very responsive to

the cities´ Mayors, who complained against the use-limiting covenants of the ex-army

transfers. Programs were prepared to help the local authorities to finance development

plans and infrastructure improvements. EU Structural Funds were mobilized to aid

brownfield redevelopment. What however not happened and what no Mayor was

asking the national level for, was help with:

property development know-how,

property management skills,

the creation of development partnerships and their management coaching.

These skills were missing then and are still missing today. What is also missing is a

wider dissemination of experience of those, who have actually done it and who have

4 See http://www.youtube.com, Palladium Praha

5 See http://www.kasarnastribro.cz

successfully walked through the mine field of an ex-army brownfield site

redevelopment. And finally missing is also a wider land management understanding of

land recycling principles on city but also on regional scale.

Brownfields revitalisation - Case study in Czech republic

Example of Brownfield Regeneration –Best practise in barracks redevelopment - Uherské

Hradiště, Czech Republic

This case study was written by Zuzana Dvořáková Líšková with cooperation of Jirina Bergatt Jackson and

with cooperation of Jaroslav Bičan from the development department of the town Uherské Hradiště. The

case study draws on his hands on knowledge of the Uherské Hradiště barracks 10 years of brownfield

regeneration efforts

A. General context

A massive reduction of the Czech Army personnel have, after the year 2000, left large

amount of army property vacant. In many Czech towns barracks had historical roots

going back to 18 century and army presence has formed strong historic, spatial and

social connections with local communities. Beginning of the third millennium then

vacated and often quite dilapidated army properties were in a set period offered free of

charge to Czech local municipalities. Most municipalities responded positively and

accepted this “gift”. In medium and small communities army barracks complexes

represented vast redevelopment opportunities, but most municipalities had lucked

experience and development skill how to exploit this opportunity and deal with

necessary barracks transformation.

Also, the local market, which was already inflated by an influx of industrial,

institutional and agricultural brownfields, had difficulties to absorb any further

development opportunities. In location terms, some army barracks were better located

and better connected to mayor infrastructure that others.

The barracks location in Uherské Hradiště (cc 17 ha) could be categorised as a

brownfield site type B by the CABERNET classification. The nearby army training

grounds (cc 50 ha) is by the same classification probably the C type site. Here it was

very important that the local authority from the start adopts a positive regeneration

leadership role. And it was the Uherské Hradiště leadership and governance approach,

which was the deciding factor for the army barracks brownfield regeneration success.

Uherské Hradiště town council leadership demonstrated during the last 10 years in the

Czech Republic the best practise example in an approach to army barracks regeneration.

In 2011 the regeneration of barracks in Uherské Hradiště received an award from the

Association of Czech Urbanists and Planners, which has also nominated this project for

the European Urban and Regional Planning Award 2011–2012, organised by the

European Council of Spatial Planners.

When considering the European perspective, the town of Uherské Hradiště can be

found in the middle of the Central European area and it is relatively well located to two

European capitals - Vienna and Bratislava. But from the point of location in the Czech

Republic, the town lies in Zlín region, close to the country eastern boarders, not

benefiting by convenient proximity of mayor infrastructure and the whole region is

perceived not to have a height enough development potential. Town, as many other

towns of the Zlín region, has a long term a stagnating population trends, but the

Uherskohradištsko is locally important micro-region, which economically performs

relatively well. The urban conurbation is formed by 3 now more or less interconnected

towns. The historic town centre of Uherské Hradiště occupies some 30 hectares and the

army barracks were adjacent to it cc 500 meters to the east. The barracks site was some

17ha of an enclosed campus covered up by cc 60 various buildings, forming on the

frontage of the river Morava and a buffer between the town centre and the industry. In

2002 the barracks area was already in a quite dilapidated condition, luckily the mayor

pollution caused by previous army logistic activities, was removed by the Ministry of

Defence contractors.

But today, the army barracks in Uherské Hradiště are not a brownfield anymore. They

became a new quarter of the town, while in many other Czech towns, which may have

been larger, better located or were regional capitals, army bases are still remaining

sources of dilapidation, failed promises, litigation or speculation.

B. Visioning, planning, programming

From a starting point of a transfer of the army base into town´s ownership, back in the 2002, the

town council had realised that in their given geo-economic situation and with very limited

market opportunities, the town has to take steps and alone address, steer and lead the barrack

site redevelopment. Actually, even before the army base was transferred into town´s ownership,

the town council have started to prepare a concept for the barracks reuse. The council policy

was to identify new public facilities for this site (housing, education, sport, public domain, est.).

In accordance with this concept, the council also immediately amended its local plan, so that the

permitting for intended regeneration uses was ready and in place.

Uherské Hradiště has decided for a conceptual and purposeful approach based on a

long-term revitalization. The structural conditions of buildings was evaluated, quality

of technical infrastructure assessed and the town own development needs were also

were considered. Then the following goals and development principles were

formulated:

primarily preferred would be activities with positive impacts on economic

development of the town,

mixed development was envisaged for the barracks area, comprising of:

a. residential zone in the western and northern part of the site,

b. educational zone in the central part of the site,

c. commercial zone with shopping area in the eastern part of the site.

These visions and principles for future utilization have been drawn up in an urban

study called “The Concept of Utilization of the Former Military Quarters in Uherské

Hradiště”. This study, which has fulfilled a role of the development master-plan, was a

result of combined efforts of local specialists and the expert panel group. The master

plan was submitted to the public for consultation and subsequently it was approved by

the town council. Since its initial approval, the master plan was updated twice, mainly

to reflect the possible funding sources from the emerging waves of the ERDF. To control

the process of progressive transformation of former barracks, the town have established

a management group for conversion of the barracks, headed by the town mayor.

From very beginning it became clear, that town´s own budget alone could not finance

all the required regeneration work and investments and that alternative funding

sources would have to be used. Town councils´ activities were by 2004 sufficient to raise

an interest from chain supermarket operators, who actually purchased a corner of the

barracks site and also financed improvements to site access and its infrastructure. This

gave the council needed cash flow for co-financing of further investments and so

proceeds, created by the site development betterment on selected sites sold to private

investors, were used for financing further development of barracks´ public projects.

To kick start regeneration activities and to promote this site on a local market, the town

council took a strategic approach of placing on site various public investments, which

could benefit from a support of national grants and later from various EU ERDF

funding sources (special housing, education, est.). When in 2004 the ERDF funding

became available, the town council again used it very creatively and strategically. By

back to back grant arrangements, the town had managed to build up an educational

campus. The campus tenants were then able to apply for further grants - this time from

the ESF funding source. In this way the site gained 1 200 students (teaching premises,

canteens, students halls, est.) and a branches of a 3 separate Czech Universities6 were

located there.

C. Implementation phase

Commercial zone – admission of the private investors to the site regeneration and

conversion process brought up first visible results – a new supermarket, car parking for

100 cars, an improved access to the site and neighborhood sport activities, were already

opened by the end of 2004. Limited commercial development activities continue on the

site until today (2012).

Residential zone – was not a strictly mono-functional – the zone included also amenity

buildings or administrative headquarters of companies. The first two projects were

former military buildings reconstructed into rental apartments and “sheltered”

housing. Other smaller buildings were used as residences of private companies. One of

6Faculty of Technology, UTB Zlín; Faculty of Economics, VŠB Ostrava; Pedagogical Faculty, UP Olomouc.

the buildings was also purchased and reconstructed by the Zlín Region for a special

school purposes. In the northern zone, private developers have built number of new

block of flats, inclusive of new street connections. In 2010, the public green areas were

improved - a former military shooting range was revitalized into a town park and a

new public square was created.

The educational and training zone however had the largest development impact and

from the point of view of the town, it was the most important project. The educational

and training zone was implemented in a central part of the site. Here the town realized

two projects, both with support of the EU ERDF funding. In 2006, several major

buildings were revitalized and adapted for of" the Regional Educational Centre –

University Campus" and for "The Lifelong Learning Centre". These facilities were then

complemented by a new "Catering and Accommodation Center”. In 2011 was

reconstructed the last vacant building in this zone into an industry Training Center.

Transport infrastructure improvements - Majority of transport and infrastructural

improvements were over the years carried out by various adjacent private and public

projects, but in 2009, a mayor street running through the site was revitalized.

After 10 years of regeneration efforts, the heavily urbanised parts of the site were

refurbished and the less urbanised parts were substantially remodelled and

redeveloped. But the regeneration process is still going on, because a weak local market

can yearly absorb only a limited level of development. The barracks are unfortunately

not the only brownfield in the town and they have also a strong competition from the

Greenfield developments on town outskirts and in surrounding villagers. The table 1

describes in a time perspective the major activities, which were realised during the 10

years of barracks redevelopment.

Table 8. Major activities undertook during the 10 years of the barracks redevelopment

implementation.

2000 Last soldier is leaving the army base

2001 Ministerial decision that the barracks are not needed by the army and can be

transferred onto the town

2002 Town is becoming the barracks owner

Concept of the barracks regeneration is prepared

Suitable land use for the site approved by the local plan

2003 Project preparation work

First grant application to national finance sources

Canvassing for further public investments to the site (mainly regional)

Commercial investor´s interest in the site

2004 Revision to the barracks regeneration concept

Public tender for a strategic development partner for the commercial zone

Grant application to the ERDF for the educational zone

Commencement of housing use regeneration work

Completion of the commercial zone including anew access to site

2005 Funding for the educational zone from the ERDF sources and also from the national

budget

Public tenders for construction work on the educational zone

First tenants move to the “sheltered” housing

Completion of the regional investment for the Slovácké museum

Completion of private investment into a tennis facility

2006 Completion of life education centre and commencement of centre activities

Commencement of a private mixed development (commercial/housing) investment

Public tender for housing construction on north of the site

Completion of the site main infrastructure

2008 Completion of housing

Landscaping and public domain improvements work

2009 Preparation work, application to funding source and tender for Verbířská street

revitalization

2010 Revitalization of the Verbířská street

2011 Revitalization of the Green Square

Revitalization of the park „Za plotem“

Completion of the centrum of further education – MARLIN

2012 Construction of a multifunctional block

D. Outputs and results

i) Land use

Only cc 15% of from the original 17ha of the barracks area was allocated for commercial

activities. Majority of land use (over 60%) was dedicated to housing and remaining land

was dedicated for the educational activities.

ii) Public investment

By 2012, from all the funds invested into the barracks´ regeneration (16 800 000,00€), the

city council have invested only 7% and managed to attract to the site 7% of

investments from the national sources and 28% of investments from various EU ERDF

funding sources.

iii) Private investment

The private investors´ participation on the site development was by 2012 in a region of

58% from the entire realised investments7.

iv) Investment leverage

This account to 1 : 14 leverage for the town of Uherské Hradiště – every Euro of town´s

investment was matched 14 times by other investments. The public private -

investment leverage on predominantly public uses site is then respectable 1 : 1,4 – for

every Euro of public investment to the site the private investors have invested 1,4 Euro.

v) Ownership

Cc 72% of buildings located on the site remains in public ownership (regional or

town´s) and only 28% of buildings are privately owned. From the original 17 hectares of

land, the town today owns only 15%. This amount contains mainly the reserved

housing land dedicated for the later development8. This land was for the time being

converted into a park.

E. Sustainability precondition

In 2002 the site had produced next to no employment opportunities. Today, the site

offers more than 600 jobs and 11 companies are located there.

The town councils involvement in brownfield regeneration had of necessity caused the

town to seek new management approaches, new financing and procurement methods.

All this made the town hall in Uherské Hradiště into one of the most “clued up” town

halls in the Czech Republic and it is helping the Uherskohradištsko micro-region to be

one of the most competitive locations of the Zlín region.

Former barracks area in Uherské Hradiště is today a new, full-featured, urbanistically

integrated, multi-functional district, with all town incorporating attributes, such as

streets, squares and other public spaces. Existing knowledge gained from the

regeneration of the former barracks area shows that:

7Source: Uherské Hradiště development deparment

8 Source: Investment and ownership information source: Monika Špačková, Kasárna v Uherském Hradišti a Hodoníně a jejich přeměna: srovnávací studie, http://is.muni.cz/th/321947/prif_b/

a strong conceptual approach positively reflects on functionalities of the

regenerated area,

well planed and prepared regeneration approach creates readable and less risky

conditions for incoming investors and their new activities and investments - and

they than do not conflict with the interests of the town, living environment or

intentions of other developers,

the regeneration investment requirements in such cases always much exceeds the

public budgets, hence strategies have to be used, which can take an advantage

from multisource finance and from participation of the EU ERDF and other funds

support or from a support from the state budget,

strong investor involvement enables a quick kick start of the area regeneration

process,

opening the previously gated areas to public which improves urban quality,

creates new public spaces and brings benefits to entire community – and is very

positively accepted by the public.

F. New initiative

After so successfully dealing with the barracks site in an urban context, the town

councils has in 2011 decided to address a revitalisation of the 50 ha army training

grounds, which is located on the eastern edge of the town. An integrated regeneration

program with 4 key projects (3 public, one private) was prepared by the council. The

intention is, from now partially overgrown location to create a new recreational area for

the town. With the existing town´s council experience and the ERDF funding support,

even C type site regeneration seems to be a realistic proposal.

III. Role of local initiative groups in Czech Republic

Micro-regions and local action groups

Basic Principles of Micro-Regions and LAGs

Micro-regions and local action groups are set up to support a local partnership,

common interests of local communities.

Micro-regions and local action groups (LAGs) arise most often as a cluster of villages

around a natural centre of a rural territory. The size of micro regions varies but roughly

half of them are regions up to ten thousand inhabitants and up to ten member

communities (only about 8.5 percent have more than thirty member municipalities).

Most of them were set up in the period 1999 - 2001, in connection with amending Act

No. 128/2000 Coll. On Municipalities (the Municipal Order). In the following years, the

tendency of their setting up was rather decreasing or micro regions were set up as

associations of municipalities under the Act on Municipalities.

The Local Action Groups (LAGs – their size, characteristics) - are clearly determined by

the LEADER Programme. Most of them originated in monitored regions between the

years 2005-2007, mainly due to the popularization of LEADER in rural areas and the

growing amount of money on the activities. We can find a local action group with more

than fifty villages and fifty thousand inhabitants. Compared with micro-regions LAGs

have a slightly lower density of population (92 inhabitants/km ²), illustrating the

principles and methods of LEADER Programme, which is meant for rural areas with

low population density. Overall, the ratio of the size of the micro-region to local action

groups in terms of population is about 2.5 times greater in favor of LAG.

It should be noted that the local action groups and micro-regions are entities, which

often operate in the same territory and are even linked with the same organizational

and functional structure of development management.

Why are LAGs or micro-regions set up?

Municipalities set up micro-regions or LAGs especially to support a common interest in

a general development of the local territory (almost half of the micro regions and LAGs

respondents) or vice versa they are set up for one reason, for example to build a sewage

water treatment plant, public sewer or gas installation. Other reasons include the

mayors’ cooperation, exchange of information and experience, or the Rural

Development Programme and development in other areas (tourism, infrastructure and

transport services, education) and the realization of common development strategy.

Management

As for management, in general we can see personal experience of respondents, as well

as dependence on the financial position of individual entities. Development

management in a third of all monitored entities is provided by employees in labour-law

relationship, usually by an accountant, Chairmen, managers, coordinators and other

administrative staff. A fifth of micro-regions have no employees at all, and no one gets

money for his/her work. Conversely, a "professional" management generally prevails in

LAGs which indicated internal staff (in sixty percent of responses). The ratio of

"internal" - their own - managers is approximately 2:1 for LAGs. They primarily prepare

project documentation; ensure the normal operation, communications, public relations,

promotion and coordination of activities with local businesses, non-profit organizations

and associations.

Responsibilities in micro-regions and LAGs

From the research results it is also clear that external advice and consultation are

relatively usual, yet it is clearly more used in micro-regions than in LAGs - mostly for

processing project applications and strategic documents.

These results in terms of development management and above all the personnel

capacity we cannot regard as satisfying if we consider micro-regions and LAGs as one

of the main bodies that concentrate on development of rural areas. To eliminate these

shortcomings, we need well-trained and knowledgeable "professional" workers, so

called Rural Managers who will be directly tied to a specific region and will respond

promptly to the needs of development, not only through the preparation and

implementation of specific projects, as it can be seen from the research.

Strategic development planning

The vast majority of micro-regions and LAGs have a development strategy with long-

term objectives, priorities, actions and sometimes even specific development projects

(only twenty of respondents responded negatively). Almost half of all entities have a

strategy for the medium-term period (3-7 years), which corresponds with the

programming period of the EU Structural Funds 2007 – 2013. Strategic plans are mainly

elaborated by external consulting firms (45 percent of responses), only eight micro-

regions and ten LAGs have elaborated the strategic plan by themselves.

It is difficult to interpret, however, if the strategic plan is "alive" or "dead" document, or

to what extent it is used in practice. A very rough estimation is that about one third of

the strategic plans we can mark as "live" documents - they are updated or evaluated

using indicators or other keys.

Public participation in the process of strategy-making is more than lukewarm. The least

participating group is paradoxically the numerically largest group - the unorganized

public. As for organizing public discussion with the general public are the differences

between micro-regions (twelve percent) and LAGs (fourteen percent) insignificant. The

core of the participants are mayors of associated communities (a quarter of all micro-

regions and LAGs), they are often accompanied by other municipal representatives

(councillors). Another group, which is not always present, are entrepreneurs, farmers or

representatives of non-profit organizations.

Generally there are more strategic plans with a focus on "hard" type of investment plans

such as reconstruction; building of water supply and sewerage networks, there is less

"soft" non-investment plans. The tourism is another area of focus; it can be seen as

potentially the easiest option for an agreement and wider cooperation of micro-regions

and LAGs members. The answers, however, cannot be clearly interpreted what exactly

the respondents had in mind talking about tourism and whether the proposed forms

are in accordance with sustainable development. For some, this means support for

building new cycle tracks, for somebody else it is a reconstruction and building of new

sports facilities or materials for the promotion of tourism.

Financing the activities of micro-regions and LAGs

The organizations are financed from their own and also other sources. Regarding its

own financial funds, the research focused mainly on membership fees that micro-

regions and LAGs collected from their members. Membership fees are more often used

by micro-regions than LAGs, but it is used by more than eighty percent of all entities

(and more than sixty percent of LAGs). If LAGs collect membership fees, they are

usually lower than micro-region membership fees. This is primarily due to the different

way of running of both types of organizations and due to a slightly different way of

financing of development projects. LAGs have compared to micro-regions more

opportunities to raise funds from different programs.

The most common method of determining the amount of membership fees is the

number of inhabitants of the member municipalities. LAGs more often use a

combination of the number of inhabitants and fixed amounts according to the type of

entity (e.g. five hundred crowns for individuals, one thousand crowns for the village

plus three crowns per capita). However, membership fees are only a small part of the

total income and expenditure for the majority of entities (it is not even twenty-five

percent of the total income or expenditure). When monitoring the total income and

expenses of entities, it can be said that most entities had higher revenues than

expenditures in 2006 (56:44 in favour of entities with a higher income than expenses).

The experiences of individual entities with drawing external financial resources

(subsidies, grants) are very colourful. They are summarized in the chart "The experience

with drawing of financial resources in %." However, there is the predominant

experience with drawing from regional resources, which is mainly associated with

drawing within the Rural Development Programme.

Common activities

The most common form of assistance to micro-region and LAGs and its "members" is to

provide information about grants. The research on micro-regions and local action

groups in the three cohesion regions (NUTS II) - Central Moravia, Central Bohemia and

North West, was carried out within the project Benchmarking of rural areas - Improving

the micro-region management as a tool for addressing regional disparities. We

managed to get data from one hundred and seventy micro-regions and LAGs from a

total of 292 existing entities in these territories. The aim was to obtain information to be

able to find the typology of development management in micro-regions and LAGs and

basic information about micro-regions and local action groups in terms of their strategic

planning, project preparation, financing and evaluation activities.

The research results helped to uncover important aspects - of how common activities

are provided and to describe the functional connection between the individual bodies,

the methods, procedures and working styles micro-regions and LAGs usually use and

what results are achieved due to them.

Ideal and properly functioning development management of micro-regions and LAGs

have the coordinating, initiating, strategic and executive functions. Their purpose is

primarily to implement political and economic benefits, the initiation of positive growth

trends or minimization of the impact of negative phenomena in the development of

rural regions.

"Professional" development management must therefore be seen not only as the

organizational structure of the micro-regions / LAGs, but primarily as a method, which

initiates and implement activities/projects.

SOURCES

http://www.uur.cz/images/publikace/metodickeprirucky/plnezneni/uzemniplanovani-v-cr-2007-cz-

an/uzemni-planovani-cr-08-2007-an.pdf

http://www.legislationline.org/upload/legislations/98/5a/b525fba0a0ffcf188d5453679804.htm

http://www.ccre.org/republique_tcheque_en.htm

http://www.czso.cz/eng/redakce.nsf/i/home

Homepage of the Ministry for Regional Deevelopment, http://old.mmr.cz/index.php?show=001025

http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/374/index_EN.htm

Ministry of Interior SR, 2014. Územné a správne usporiadanie SR - ang. [cit 2014-08-08] Available at:<

http://www.minv.sk/?uzemne-a-spravne-usporiadanie-slovenskej-republiky>

www.nsrr.sk

Partnerská dohoda SR na roky 2014-2020 (1. návrh). [cit 2014-08-08] Available at: <

http://www.nsrr.sk/sk/programove-obdobie-2014---2020/>

Národný program reforiem Slovenskej republiky 2011 – 2014. [cit 2014-08-08] Available at:

http://www.rokovania.sk/File.aspx/ViewDocumentHtml/Mater-Dokum-155091?prefixFile=m_

Act No. 539/2008 Coll. on Support of Regional Development. Available at:

< http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php?ids=159551&lang=en>

National Regional Development Strategy of the SR, Available at:

< http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/index.php?ids=159551&lang=en>

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/geography/Congo-Democratic-Republic-of-the-to-

India/Hungary.html

http://www.worldatlas.com/geography/hungarygeography.htm

https://www.ksh.hu/regional_atlas_counties

https://www.ksh.hu/regional_atlas_administration_structure

http://misc.meh.hu/letoltheto/Kiadvany-angol-0507.pdf

https://www.nth.gov.hu/en/activities/territorial-development

http://www.nih.gov.hu/activity/the-role-of-nih

http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Reference%20Documents/Final%20TA2020.pdf

http://www.umvp.eu/english/local-action-groups

http://econ.core.hu/file/download/mtdp/MTDP1138.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction

https://www.nth.gov.hu/en/activities/territorial-development

Luděk Sýkora and Jana Temelová, National Report of the Czech Republic for the ESPON 2.3.2 project Page 103

• PLUREL Deliverable Report 2.2.1 • June 2010

Faziková, M. 2012. Rural Development: Textbook [CD-rom]. Nitra: SPU, 2012.

JUDIT KATONA-KOVÁCS - CHRIS HIGH - GUSZTÁV NEMES (2011): Importance of Animation Actions in the

Operation of Hungarian Local Action Groups