Round Table 3:
Decentralised cooperation as a tool
for addressing the challenges of decentralisation in developing countries
Record of the proceedings
The round table comprised local elected representatives from Burkina Faso, France, Spain, Mali,
Romania, the Dominican Republic and the Republic of Moldova, a Senegalese government minister,
and a representative of the European Commission. As well as attending in this capacity, some of the
elected representatives were also representing national associations of local and regional authorities,
meaning that the points of view expressed covered a broad spectrum of geographical locations and
institutions.
With the briefing note for the Round Table as a basis, the presentations and discussions were
structured around three key questions:
1.
2.
3.
What role should local, intermediate and regional authorities play in framing and implementing
decentralisation in the partner countries?
What additional dimension does decentralised cooperation bring?
What forms does and/or should cooperation on decentralisation take, particularly in relation to
fiscal decentralisation and mobilisation of local and external financial resources?
This last question was also coupled with a more forward looking exploration of the developments that
are already envisaged or could be envisaged over the next few years with a view to supporting
decentralisation in the developing countries.
What role should local, intermediate and regional authorities play in framing and implementing
decentralisation in the partner countries
Initially, the discussion focused on the process of decentralisation itself and the wide diversity of
forms it has assumed. The process had a longer or shorter history, depending on the country, with
some speakers describing it as "gestating" and others as a phenomenon that had already begun over a
hundred years ago. Similarly, in some countries decentralisation was a relatively unconstrained
process, whereas in others there had been obstacles to the actual transfer of powers or resources.
Nonetheless, over and above these differences, all the speakers, whatever their origin or experience,
were unanimous in recognising the need to build on and support "good" decentralisation. The
arguments behind this shared vision were twofold, relating, firstly to democratic legitimacy, as
…/…
-2decentralisation narrowed the distance between decision-making and ordinary citizens and, secondly
and more pragmatically, in accordance with the logic of subsidiarity, to the concern for greater
efficiency, in that greater proximity allowed for a better match between policy responses and needs.
More specifically, the discussions highlighted the strong political legitimacy of local and regional
authorities and the consequent need to involve them in decentralisation processes, which could no
longer be imposed from above by central government. Another crucial point that emerged was that
decentralisation could not, or in any case could no longer, be seen in terms of simply imposing a onesize-fits-all model, for example the model of the former colonial power, onto different political and
institutional contexts. It is here, in particular, that local and regional authorities must be seen as the
legitimate players in decentralisation.
In this perspective, the local elected representatives taking part in the round table all had a very strong
message to convey: central governments and/or international institutions could not treat local
authorities as simple service providers. As one of the speakers put it, "power must come back home",
whilst another added that it was time to bring an end to the paternalism of the central government and
international institutions.
Other speakers emphasised that the current economic crisis must not serve as an excuse for
"recentralising", a tendency that was emerging in some countries. On the contrary, increasing the
involvement of local authorities, and therefore also local populations, in drawing up public policies
was a way of making policies in general and local development policies in particular both more
effective and more stable.
Lastly, speakers pointed to the vital contribution that associations and networks of local and regional
authorities, both within and between countries, could make to these processes, in particular the
building of institutional capacity. As well as referring to the CoR, ARLEM and CORLEAP,
participants also mentioned the CLRAE, the CEPLI, the UCLG and Arco Latino, which brought local
and regional authorities together across borders and strengthened them and their role in shaping
decentralisation.
What additional dimension does decentralised cooperation bring?
One of the benefits or strengths of cooperation between sub-national entities that was singled out for
particular emphasis was the fact that it enabled local and regional authorities to be proactive in
relation to aid, rather than being simply beneficiaries. In this way, it strengthened local and regional
authorities, which were then more likely and better able to take responsibility for local development
and manage it in a more sustainable way. It also encouraged both civil society and wider community
participation in the decision-making and implementation process.
Attention was also paid to the benefits of decentralised cooperation in "south/south" partnerships, in
particular cross-border partnerships. Several examples were cited, including the Sahel, the Casamance
area and cooperation between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, demonstrating how decentralised
…/…
-3cooperation between LRAs in the partner countries was facilitating, or concretising, the process of
regional integration.
Being based on peer-to-peer exchanges, another added value of decentralised cooperation lay in the
advantages of a pacifist approach which had no other objective besides that of partnership for
development, whereas in relations between countries at national level, other objectives could come
into play.
What forms does and/or should cooperation on decentralisation take?
Whilst there is general agreement on the interest and benefits of decentralisation, the question of what
form it should take and what kind of international cooperation should be used to support it is more
open to discussion and sometimes argument. Nevertheless, both the speakers and participants in the
Round Table agreed that the most important condition was to establish better linkages between the
various levels at which action was taken (local, national, European, international and global). From
this point of view, local and regional authorities needed to be more involved in shaping development
cooperation programmes, particularly at the EU level.
In addition, the discussions highlighted that although small-scale cooperation projects could serve as
"policy laboratories" and should not therefore disappear, it was also important to move beyond or
better integrate "one off" projects, including those established using the decentralised cooperation
approach. The strategic challenge, particularly in the view of the European Commission, was
therefore to "get out of the ghetto of one-off forms of support" and develop a cross-cutting approach
that was integrated into general development policies.
Starting from the observation that the processes of decentralisation being supported by the European
Union were sometimes held back by the ministers responsible for specific policy areas, it was
proposed that the EU representatives in its delegations to the partner countries be encouraged to work
with the all the different levels of political decision making, rather than with central government
alone.
This decentralised approach was considered to be particularly appropriate, since it was one of the
most productive and an extremely effective source of financing, yet despite this, public funding was
decreasing and decentralised cooperation projects were under threat.
Lastly, two further sets of ideas emerged from the debate: firstly, that it could be judicious for LRAs
to work together and focus on economic projects and that accordingly serious consideration should be
given to this aspect and, secondly, that still more emphasis should be placed on strengthening local
and regional, national and international associations and networks, in that these could give LRAs an
opportunity to take advantage of specific peer-to-peer benefits and exchanges of skills and experience.