Impact of the decentralisation reform on national minorities in in the selected regions: , Odesa and Zakarpattya oblasts

1 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Mostly on-line study due to pandemics restrictions

• Sources of information: • Survey of public opinion • Collection of data on ethnic structure of local politicians and administration • 39 in-depth interviews in 3 oblasts (some with multiple respondents) • Local councillors and elected heads of administration • Regional state administration, oblast councillors • NGOs (incl. minority organisations)

• Selection of oblasts due to ethnic composition • The highest proportion of non-Ukrainian residents except

of (incl. Sevastopol), and 2 Decentralisation and national minorities

• In several cases: • Lower representation of non-Ukrainian minorities in local authorities (councillors, heads of administration) • Lower share of students in schools teaching in other languages

3 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Decentralisation reform – territorial amalgamation

• Municipal tier – from over 11,000 (incl. occupied territories) to 1,470 (incl. City) in 2015-2020 period • Reduction by ca. 5,000 in the voluntary phase • Further reduction by further ca. 5,000 in compulsory phase • Only 19 local governments with less than 3,000 population (the smallest ca. 1,800) • Mean population size increase from just over 4,000 to 29,000 persons, (including Kyiv City), median size 11,600

• Rayon tier (incl. cities of oblast significance) from over 600 to 136

• Municipal tier – one of the most radical amalgamations in Europe in 21st century (only Georgian 2006 reform was more radical) 4 Decentralisation and national minorities

Mean size of municipal governments in European countries 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Italy

Spain

Latvia

France

Poland

Austria

Greece

Croatia

Finland

Estonia

Albania

Norway

Sweden

Belgium

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Slovenia

Hungary

Portugal

Romania

UKRAINE

Denmark

Germany

Lithuania

Czech Rep. Czech

Netherlands N. Macedonia N. Decentralisation and national minorities

Structure of municipal governments by population size 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Poland Ukraine <3,000 3-5,000 5-10,000 10-30,000 >30,000 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Not only the mere fact of amalgamation

• Large proportion through the voluntary (incentivized) process • Significant functional decentralisation (taking over most of former rayon functions) • Financial reform • New sources of revenues • Inclusion in the inter-governmental transfer system

• General increase in the level of local autonomy

7 Decentralisation and national minorities

Local Autonomy Index - 2014 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

UK

Italy

Spain

Malta

Latvia

Serbia

France

Turkey

Cyprus

Poland

Ireland

Austria

Greece

Iceland

Croatia

Finland

Estonia

Albania

Norway

Ukraine

Sweden

Belgium

Bulgaria

Slovakia

Slovenia

Hungary

Portugal

Romania

Moldova

Denmark

Germany

Lithuania

GEORGIA

Macedonia

Switzerland

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Liechtenstein Czech Republic Czech 2020? Decentralisation and national minorities

• Decentralisation reform largely positively assessed through public opinion and local elites. e.g.: Public opinion on changes in local public services after amalgamation 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 roads maintenance municipal public space

improvement deterioration 9 Decentralisation and national minorities

• National minorities (concentrated in particular territories) may have a bigger impact on provision of services due to functional and financial decentralisation which are of a key importance for everyday life of local communities

• Critical comments • Not sufficient information in the initial stage • Fear of unemployment among formal local public administration • New election rules for a 10,000+ voters’

10 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Representatives of polyethnic ATCs in all the target regions were more likely to share a positive attitude toward the reform outcomes than representatives of regional or national minorities’ NGOs

• Confusion over distinguishing impact of decentralisation and other (parallel) interlinked, but separate reforms – education, health care

• Increasing level of interest in consultative mechanisms and instruments of civic participation • positive examples identified in the three oblasts are individual initiatives rather than the outcome of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy Decentralisation and national minorities

Proportion of citizens of non-Ukrainian nationality 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Remaining oblasts Chernivtsi Zakarpattya Odesa (excl. Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Luhansk)

12 Decentralisation and national minorities

Ethnic structure of 3 researched oblasts (2001) 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Chernivtsi Zakarpattya Odesa Ukrainian Russian Moldovan Bulgarian Hungarian Romanian Other Decentralisation and national minorities

• In researched oblasts 13 rayons in which ethnic constituted less than half of populations • 3 in Chernivtsi • 2 in Zakarpattya • 8 in Odesa Ethnic composition of population in selected rayons 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Gertsaji Novoselycya Beregove rayon Beregove city Bolgrad Reni Chernivtsi Zakarpattya Odesa Ukrainian Non-Ukrainian 14 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Recommendations – 1

• Monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of the decentralisation reform • Ensure clear division of powers and responsibilities between the State and local authorities as well as between different tiers of • Consider revision of legislation relating to local elections to ensure representation of all communities in local elected assemblies • Improve legal framework on sub-municipal units protecting identity and representing interests of small communities

15 Decentralisation and national minorities

• Recommendations - 2

• Enhance financial and legal instruments to ensure availability and quality of education at schools teaching in minority languages • Strengthen legal framework on the protection of national minorities • Expand legal framework on participatory democracy, promote use of the existing relevant tools and enhance targeted capacity building and awareness raising interventions

16 Thank you for attention

17