Strasbourg, 16 November 2020 CDDG (2020)20 Addendum I Item 4.3 of the agenda EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE (CDDG) DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE AND COVID-19 Compendium of the replies to the Rapid Response Service no. 38 Secretariat Memorandum prepared by the Directorate General of Democracy Democratic Governance Division 2 INDEX AUSTRIA…………………………………………………………………………………………......4 BELGIUM (Flanders)……………………………………………………………..………………….8 BULGARIA…………………………………………………………………………………………..17 CROATIA………….…………………………………………………………………………………20 CYPRUS….…………………………………………………………………………………………..28 CZECH REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………………….…………..30 FINLAND…………………………………………………………………………………………… 33 FRANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41 GERMANY (Rhineland Palatinate) ……………………………………………………………. 56 GREECE……………………………………………………………………………………………… 60 HUNGARY…………………………………………………………………………………………... 82 ICELAND...…………………………………………………………………………………………..90 ITALY………………………………………………………………………………………………….97 LATVIA……………………………………………………………………………………………….99 MALTA……………………………………………………………………………………………….103 REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA………………………………………………………………………107 MONTENEGRO……………………..……………………..…………………………………......119 NORWAY……………………………………………………………………………………………136 POLAND…………………………………………………………………………………………….141 ROMANIA…………………………………………………………………………………………..164 Overview of the replies to the Rapid Response Service no. 38 [CDDG(2020)10 Addendum I] 3 SLOVAK REPUBLIC……………………………………………………………………………..170 SLOVENIA………………………………………………………………………………………… 173 SPAIN……………………………………………………………………………………………… 181 SWEDEN……………………………………………………………………………………………225 SWITZERLAND………………………………………………………………………………….. 230 UNITED KINGDOM………………………………………………………..…………….…….. 232 APPENDIX: RAPID RESPONSE SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………249 Overview of the replies to the Rapid Response Service no. 38 [CDDG(2020)10 Addendum I] 4 AUSTRIA MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE 1.1. What is the allocation of competences between different levels of government (national, regional, local) in responding to the emergency? Has the normal allocation of competences been modified to response to the emergency? The normal allocation of competences has not been modified, with the exception, that the Federal Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection has been entitled to enact a ban to enter public places. Response to the outbreak of communicable diseases and measures to mitigate consequences are tasks of the federal government, which are carried out by the authorities of the federal states. A separate law, which was adopted in the corona crisis, empowers the Federal Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection, the governors of the provinces and the district authorities to prohibit access to public places and business areas by ordinance. On the regional and local levels of government measures according to their area of competence stipulated in the Federal Constitution were taken. 1.2. What mechanisms are being used to ensure co-ordination between different levels of government in responding to the emergency? Crisis management boards were established at national, regional and local levels and a national crisis response structure was set up under the coordination of the Ministry of the Interior which involves all relevant federal ministries, governments of the provinces, first response organizations, civil protection, health authorities and critical infrastructures. Coordination is ensured through daily meetings of a coordination committee and a permanent crisis management cell. These procedures were followed consistently in the course of the crisis. There is a legal duty of information between the different levels of government to ensure co-ordination. Austria implemented daily routinely meetings of the National Disaster and Crises Management (SKKM) in the Ministry of Interior with the responsible health authorities in the federal states via videoconference. MoH consultates with the provincal health authorities via weekly telephone conferences. Additional telephone conferences are held if necessary. Telephone calls and videoconferences are used at all levels. 1.3 What mechanisms are being used to ensure co-ordination between the authorities – at different levels – and other public bodies and agencies involved in responding to the emergency in specific areas (such as health, education, social issues and civil protection)? The national crisis management structure involves all relevant ministries, regional governments and first response organizations. As the structure is quite comprehensive all relevant players which were mentioned in the question are involved. Other organizations and private companies, mainly critical infrastructure providers, receive daily briefings by mail. The National Disaster and Crisis Management (SKKM) meets once a day. The Federal ministries, Federal provinces, rescue organizations and the media are represented in this Overview of the replies to the Rapid Response Service no. 38 [CDDG(2020)10 Addendum I] 5 coordination committee and exchanges information with all relevant stakeholders. The Federal Minister of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection works close together with the Red Cross and the federal states. Example from a regional level of governance: Under the authority of the Governor of the Tyrol, a special staff has been established to be able to respond to the challenges brought along by the crisis; this staff comprises high-ranking representatives of the different fields and authorities involved (from the health, education, social, civil protection and so on sectors). This staff meets in permanence to steer the measures to be taken for the entire region. Similar measures have been taken in the other Austrian provinces. 1.4. Has there been a transfer of financial resources from the central to the regional and/or local level to provide additional resources to respond to the emergency? What other measures have been introduced to make the economic situation easier at regional and/or local level? The answer will be given later according to the legal framework on the ongoing crisis. THE FRONTLINE ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES 2.1. Please mention one or more significant initiatives in the area of democratic governance taken at the level of local authorities (for instance responsiveness, effectiveness, provision of services, meeting the needs of persons from vulnerable groups, etc.) Communities (cities, villages, ..) have organized shopping services for people belonging to risk groups or for older people. Volunteers work. 2.2. How have the specific challenges of cities and metropolitan areas been addressed? And the specific challenges of rural areas? The federal structure allows both, to meet the specific challenges of cities/metropolitans and also of rural areas. Cities, metropolitan areas and rural areas are represented in the above-mentioned special staff. 2.3. Are there examples of inter-municipal co-operation in responding to the emergency? National cooperation: If needed, people can be transferred within Austria to the most suitable place for their treatment. International cooperation: To help France and Italy, patients from these countries were transferred to Austria for treatment. The strategy to now comprised the isolation of the single municipalities and cities of the Tyrol in order to limit the quote of infection. For this reason, inter-municipal co-operation in responding to the emergency was not possible. CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION 3.1 What has been the impact of Covid-19 on cross-border co-operation? Intensified coordination and information sharing among MoH of EU member states especially via the EU Health Security Committee, the Early Warning and Response System and video conferences of the European Commission. Regular information sharing among the WHO member states via mission briefings and information sessions (including country presentations) at the global and regional level. Overview of the replies to the Rapid Response Service no. 38 [CDDG(2020)10 Addendum I] 6 Frontiers got closed, so cross-border co-operation could only take place by means of telephone and video-conferences. On political as well as on administrative level these means were used a lot to stay connected, get informed and provide help where necessary. Impacts on level of cross-border EU-Interreg programmes: As crossing of Austrian borders to neighbouring Member States (as for example Vienna: CZ, SK and HU) has been restricted, all planed in-situ meetings such as meetings of monitoring committees, bilateral working groups, etc. scheduled from mid March to end of June have been cancelled. They have been partly replaced by on-line meetings but communication is mainly working via written procedures and telephone. We assume that physical meetings will not take place until autumn. Consequently, programming the new funding period 2021 -2027 is challenging without face-to-face discussions and further delays are unfortunately expected. On level of EU-projects the impacts differ: projects targeting children, teachers or school authorities have difficulties in implementing their activities according to plan because of closing of kindergarten and schools. Also here, physical meetings are mostly replaced by on-line meetings. Some activities have been shifted, others had to be postponed. But long- term effects on key project outputs are difficult to predict at the moment. 3.2 Are there examples of good cross-border co-operation in responding to the emergency? At what level of government has this co-operation taken place? Through a joint