EU Dialogue with Local and Regional Actors Tallinn, 20 October 2006

1. EU Dialogue with Local and Regional ActorsTallinn, 20 October 2006 Experiences in promoting Finnish municipalities interests in Brussels Lauri Lamminmäki Development Manager The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities AFLRA

2. The role of municipalities in the EU • The organisation of local and regional administration is purely a national matter • Local authorities are not mentioned in the Treaties • They are not formal partners in the EU policy-making process • However, in implementing EU policies they are in many ways bound to the political values and principles behind EU legislation • In each country the roles, functions and financial structures of municipal administration are different – so is the impact of EU legislation at the local level • The amount of “municipal issues” in EU policy-making is increasing as a result of the applying of the Open Method of Coordination • The principles of Good Governance and Subsidiarity emphasize the role of local administration – the level closest to citizens • The “systematic dialogue” between the Commission and EU/national level associations is widening

3. AFLRA’s goals & tasks in EU affairs • Main goals • To safeguard and improve the conditions for the Finnish municipalities to function well and efficiently by influencing the activities of the EU and by using the possibilities EU membership offers for international co-operation • Make the voice of local and regional level heard in the decision making process (EU and national level) • Tasks • Influence decision making in EU-affairs on national and international level • Expert & training services • EU-information to municipalities and other stakeholders • Make the Finnish local government & welfare system known • Dissemination of best practices

4. What? – Key issues 2006 • The European Social Model • The need for reforms recognized but Commission’s approach not approved • Need to find a “third way” out of economic and political crisis • Key question: how to reconcile the objectives of competitiveness and the high quality of welfare services • Public services in the internal market • Services Directive • Services of General Interest (SGIs), especially social and health services • Structural Fund Reform • New programmes for 2007 – 2013 • New financial instruments • State aid Reform • Public procurement • The renewal of the Lisbon strategy • the impact of competitiveness objectives at the local level • The role of local and regional authorities in the process • New Constitutional Agreement

5. Who? Unit of Regional and Industrial Development Co-ordination responsibility & broad, horizontal issues (Lisbon strategy, Constitution, Structured Dialogue, Governance, OMC, State aid) Unit of International Affairs: international relations, twinning • AFLRA functions as a Secretariat for the Finnish CoR delegation (technical & expert support) Units: Each unit is responsible of following EU-affairs of their own sector on national & international level (national EU-committees, working groups, drafting opinions/statements, contacts to national government and municipalities, dissemination of information) • Brussels Office: • support for Helsinki office • (information, lobbying • meetings, training) Network of EU-experts by sector/issue (meetings 4-5 times a year, mailing list)

6. How? • National level: Preparation of Finland’s positions • participation to the preparatory work of EU-committees of the ministries & parliament • national networks, information to & from the stakeholders (newsletters, publications, press releases, internet, seminars…) International level • EU-institutions • Commission (public hearings and direct contacts to the officials) • Parliament (co-operation with the (Finnish) MEP’s) • CoR (secretariat of the Finnish delegation, expert support for the delegates in drafting opinions) • European associations/organisations (networking, co-operation, working groups) • Information

7. AFLRA’s Brussels office • AFLRA in Brussels since 1992 • joint office with Swedish and Norwegian associations • mediatory link between EU and Helsinki • ”essential information just on time” • Primary task: to follow and influence EU policies in the areas of Finnish municipalities’ competence • basic resources and expertise in Helsinki, Brussels office gives information and the ”coordinates” • Services; weekly newsletters, direct information, training, workshops,… • Resources: budget 280 000 €, staff 2 + joint secretary • Added value through networking (CEMR, ELAN, CoR,…)

8. Lobbying – how to get concrete results? • Always a joint effort of several stakeholders who share similar views • Difficult to measure the impact of one single player – the final outcome is what counts • Lobbying takes place on all levels – national level is the most important • In order to be able to obtain results, all levels have to work simultaneously to the same direction and the message has to be clear • The stronger the national view, the better the results! • Brussels office has the direct contacts with EU institutions and networks, this proximity brings relevant information, flexibility and sensitivity • It is able to react quickly when necessary, but is must have the mandate to do so

9. Lobbying for a Better Services Directive • Commission’s basic message at the beginning: The proposal doesn’t change the existing situation so much • The ministry responsible for the dossier at the national level shared Commission’s views • Experts in AFLRA were much more worried because of the distinctions of the Finnish system and the problems related to country of origin principle and social & health services which are under the responsibilities of municipalities • They prepared quickly a preliminary position paper which was also translated to English • This paper and our views were effectively distributed both in Finland and in Brussels • Mixed feedback from the ELAN network, some saw at the beginning that we were exaggerating the problems • At the end they all, as well as CEMR and other local level organisations shared our views • The national politicians took our worries seriously – parliaments view followed our line • Some Finnish MEPs took the case seriously, one of them was the shadow rapporteur of her group in the European Parliament • Several other organisations supported our views, emphasising their own arguments • The Finnish front was united, our problems were well recognised at the European level • The political discussion in other countries, esp. in France had more impact on the issue • Even though many questions are still open, the final outcome will be satisfactory from Finnish municipalities point of view

10. Experiences and future needs - Helsinki • The basic structure and division of the responsibilities has proved to be good, no need to change • However, improvements are needed in: • Co-operation between different units inside the organisation • More systematic working relationship both with the national government and EU-institutions • Making the systematic follow-up of EU-processes more efficient • Internal reporting • How to motivate units and experts to follow EU-affairs of their own sector?

11. Experiences and future needs - Brussels • Services well receives at home, positive feedback • Nobody is questioning the added value and existence of Brussels office • But our operational environment is changing • Now around 300 offices representing local and regional needs in Brussels • In order to be visible and to get it’s voice heard AFLRA has to • strengthen the use of it’s resources within the existing organisation and budget framework • focus especially on those issues that are really important • network itself more effectively (new premises!) • coordinate it’s activities with Finnish regional offices more effectively