The minimum threshold of 3,000 inhabitants, established in the public administration reform, remains firmly in place, says Deputy Larisa Voloh, Vice President of the Committee for Public Administration and Regional Development. In an interview for IPN, she mentioned that the reform process will also analyze the organization at the regional level, a subject still under discussion. Currently, there is a voluntary amalgamation of localities, and in the fall, the normative stage will follow if local initiatives are insufficient.
What is the current stage of discussions at the Parliament level, at the Government level regarding the APL reform?
I believe we are already at an advanced stage. Amendments to Law 225 regarding the voluntary amalgamation process have been voted on in Parliament. There is more clarity, and things are more evident for local public authorities.
Especially, if we refer to the number of inhabitants that an administrative-territorial unit should have after the reform, being about 3 thousand inhabitants, we have more simplified and clearer procedures regarding the consultation process of citizens, counselors, and local authorities in the voluntary amalgamation process.
Similarly, the Government has come up with that concept of reform, which in turn comes with the priorities and objectives proposed by this reform: improving administrative efficiency, professionalizing public officials, increasing digitization in the administrative system, more decision-making transparency, and everything we call decentralization, including in the areas of heritage and public finance. And, not least, the primary objective of this reform is to provide higher quality services for citizens and ensure a decent life for people, regardless of the communities they live in.
You started with that figure of the minimum threshold of 3 thousand inhabitants. The question, which somehow remains open, is: why exactly 3 thousand?
So, in Law 436 there is a provision according to which administrative-territorial units cannot have a population smaller than 1,500 inhabitants. Somehow, this provision has not been taken into account over time, since 2006, when the law was voted. Today, in the context of the depopulation process, we have communities that have much less than 1,500 inhabitants, we also have localities with just over 200 inhabitants or with 500 inhabitants. So, we started from this figure and doubled it. Today, we practically no longer admit administrative-territorial units with a number less than 3 thousand inhabitants.
It’s clear that there are differing opinions. Some believe that, in the current context and in this process of rural depopulation, largely, this figure is a small one, and the impact will be minimal compared to the expectations we have for this reform process and that the figure of 5 thousand would be much more acceptable than that of 3 thousand. On the other hand, we try to listen to the voice of the citizens, the people living in these small communities, their legitimate fears and concerns about how these communities will be managed, if they will not be forgotten, underestimated or underdeveloped in the perspective of a much larger community.
On the other hand, there are also other voices, as well as other scenarios, proposing much more radical variants, such as the municipalization scenario, which, in fact, would foresee much larger communities, of over 10 thousand inhabitants.
It must be understood that, in fact, the figure of 3 thousand represents a minimum threshold, so it is not a rule. In the context of this reform, communities could decide to create administrative-territorial units that have a number of 5, 6, 10 or more thousands of inhabitants, in case there is a common vision for the development of this community and a mutually agreed understanding at the level of mayors, local councilors and citizens, so that they can jointly and efficiently manage local affairs.
Well, there are mayors, I’ve also had them at the IPN debates, who have localities with a smaller number of inhabitants and they say they manage very well, they have water, they have sewage, they have everything necessary. Why can’t a premise be found? They say that it is not necessarily required to have 3 thousand inhabitants to ensure all the necessary services.
I said that there is this discrepancy between the level of services, but also the level of infrastructure in certain communities. So, in fact, more than 60% of the communities in the Republic of Moldova do not have access to potable water. There are small localities that have succeeded over time, having efficient administration, a well-intentioned mayor, who thought, and the community got involved, they succeeded in writing a project and ensured this water supply infrastructure.
We have localities that have inherited this infrastructure from the previous period and it was only necessary to update it, to restructure it, to rebuild it, to construct a probe. There are communities that have implemented joint, regional or zonal projects, through which they have ensured their connection to certain water sources. So, our desire is to ensure that we will continue to have a fair and balanced development at the level of the entire country.
These discrepancies should no longer exist. And the fact that today that local community benefits from certain services does not guarantee that, in the coming period, it will be able to face the challenges that will follow. After all, we are discussing a European perspective of the Republic of Moldova.
In this journey, when the Republic of Moldova will become part of the European Union, the rules will be equal in relation to other administrative entities in the member countries. Today, we are talking about third countries, which are in the process of accession, and this administrative capacity must be increased to the level that meets the expectations and requirements that will follow for these public authorities.
Obviously, we are pleased that there are public authorities today capable of managing local affairs, developing communities, and ensuring a decent living for citizens. Unfortunately, in the case of these small localities, we must also look at the perspective of population numbers. Has it increased in recent years, even considering the services that the community has? Or is the population declining? Because if it continues to decline, it means that the problem is not just in services and infrastructure.
There are also other components that need to be thought out and reviewed. Operators will come where they will have a larger number of beneficiaries, where these economies of scale will exist. The economic agent, who is to provide jobs and a future for the young people living in that community, must take into account their family income and their needs in ensuring a family budget. Therefore, they will come where there will also be infrastructure, as well as a certain workforce capable of managing a business that they develop there.
Therefore, we somehow need to take into account both administrative development and economic development, as well as the integration and cooperation of communities in their ability to provide services commensurate with the financial capacity of the inhabitants. Because, in the case where the tariffs will exceed the population’s income, they simply will not access them. They will not have that payment capacity to ensure certain services. However, they will come as a package: water supply, sewerage, sanitation, street lighting, road maintenance, green space maintenance.
And we see that, over time, the larger the number of beneficiaries, the lower the rates and payments for these services are. Therefore, starting from this premise, there is this need to cooperate intercommunally and to develop these services together.
Do we understand that to put an end to this figure, being one of the most debated, the figure of 3 thousand remains fixed, or is there still room for dialogue and possible modifications in this regard?
Today, this figure is set in stone, as you said. So, we start from this figure of 3 thousand, taking into account the subsequent trend of population increase or decrease. Because we have localities where, obviously, there is an increase in population and birth rate, or the return of certain young families to the locality.
For various reasons, as I mentioned, a new economic agent may emerge that develops a business there and creates new jobs or young businesses – the development of tourism or other activities that attract young people and the working population in these areas. On the other hand, there are localities where this depopulation process continues and, from this perspective, the amalgamation process will be a continuous one, and this figure will remain constant.
By the way, in the presented reform concept, we found the specifics of the Taraclia district and we see its transformation into the Taraclia municipality. Discussions on this subject have already been held. What is the situation?
There are several reform scenarios today. You know the CALM scenario, which proposes a municipalization process that, in fact, transfers the competencies of the second level to the municipality level, and the other localities, practically the local public authorities of the first level, remain in the formula in which they are today. We believe it is a good scenario, only it is less efficient and does not meet the expectations we have in relation to this reform.
There is also the municipalization scenario proposed by Mr. Tofan, who says that all of today’s local public authorities, rural localities, become subdivisions of a municipality, of a city, of a town that will administer these localities. So here too there are positive aspects. Cities can become the engines of development.
On the other hand, we reduce local autonomy at level I and leave the villages without any form of local governance. And, in this way, there is this discrepancy between villages and cities. We want a balanced system, in which the villages also have the same opportunity to develop alongside the cities.
We do not pose an obstacle to the urbanization process. It is a natural one, which will take place, but we also do not desire a forced one, through which we would diminish, in an independent manner, the role of rural localities.
On the other hand, this formula for Taraclia falls between the two scenarios. We have the amalgamation of first-level administrative-territorial units, of villages, towards the city of Taraclia, which today is an administrative center and will become a municipal center, starting from the premise of preserving and enhancing the national and ethnic specificity of this region.
So, the Taraclia district is populated by the Bulgarian ethnic group and this municipality, which will have first and second level competencies, will also encompass another specificity, the ethnic and linguistic one, in order to preserve this national minority in a territorial area that allows the conservation of traditions, culture, and language.
This is, somehow, a scenario taken from those proposed in the strategy and it encompasses within itself the component of voluntary amalgamation, on one hand, and the component of municipalization, on the other hand.
I believe it is one that deserves to be implemented, given that today we have several national minorities with special status, and here I am also referring to Gagauzia, which is also included in this reform, but with certain specific provisions.
So, the administrative-territorial units in Gagauzia cannot merge with public authorities outside the administrative border of Gagauzia, but this does not prevent them from carrying out this process internally. That is, the units in Gagauzia will also have to comply with those legal provisions regarding the threshold of 3 thousand inhabitants.
Therefore, communities or administrative-territorial units that today have less than 3 thousand inhabitants should think ahead, strengthen their capacities, unite with each other, and reach that minimum threshold of 3 thousand inhabitants.
Is UTA Gagauzia’s case implying a mandatory amalgamation in the future, or are we just talking about voluntary amalgamation for now?
At the given moment we are talking about voluntary amalgamation, we still have this term until June-July, during which the authorities can decide for themselves how they will organize, in the future, their territorial and administrative affairs.
In the fall, the normative amalgamation is set to take place and, in the event that these voluntary initiatives from the local public authorities do not exist, that amalgamation will occur with the intervention of the state or normatively, as we call it, where the Government will come with its own interventions regarding the formation of new administrative units.
How do you ensure that mayors carry out this process correctly, still consulting with the citizens, primarily?
A very good and complex question as a process. The consultation process and the information process, the transparency of the decisions that are made at the local level, is not something new that has appeared now, in the context of the reform. It is a legal provision that is already found in the legislation of the Republic of Moldova and a process that the town halls must have every time they make important decisions for the community.
So, when this practice does not exist or, in certain communities, the local authorities, and I’m not referring only to the mayor, but also to councilors and town hall officials, do not discuss, do not hold these periodic discussions with the citizens, then such situations are created where citizens contest certain decisions that are made at the local level.
And this happens also in the case of implementing certain investment projects, when the population has a different vision and desires the implementation of another project than the one proposed by the administration. So, in the case of voluntary amalgamation, obviously the problem is much more critical, as we are talking about the way in which the city hall renounces its legal personality right in favor of another public authority, through merger or union.
So here, evidently, it is necessary for the population to be informed, as the voice of the people must be clearly heard by the authorities. We are not just talking about the interest of the mayor and the interest of the local councilors. We are talking about how these communities need to coexist in the upcoming period, to jointly exploit natural resources and heritage resources, to utilize common budgets, to implement common projects, connections to water supply systems, sewerage and local roads.
And here there should be this common vision and the best solution that everyone should accept. So, when we talk about consensus in reform, we are referring specifically to this. The consensus, first of all, of the citizens to coexist together in a new administrative unit, in a new formula.
Because they, as a locality, as a village, remain and continue to live in locality X or Y. But the way the public authority will provide them with services, meet their needs, and ensure the necessary infrastructure already depends on the common decisions that will be made. And here we must be careful about the people we will delegate to the local councils, who will be elected again. To the mayor who will be voted in a new context, in the 2027 elections. To the heads of institutions and opinion leaders, those who have influence in the locality. These people must absolutely be consulted.
Therefore, they must clearly understand what the expectations are and what the future actions will be. In this case, it is evident that we, as the central authority, provide the local public authorities with this logistical support, with this maintenance, so that they can organize these village assemblies.
I am also invited to some of them. I will go to discuss with the citizens. Our colleagues from the State Chancellery are going. I know that, practically, they are in these localities every week. They discuss within the clusters, participate in focus groups or meetings with citizens to bring more clarity. But, obviously, those in the field have the most confidence. So the mayors are the ones who enjoy the most confidence among the citizens and it is their duty to discuss with the citizens, to listen to them and to choose together with them the most optimal and correct decision.
The figures from yesterday, at least, showed that 409 localities in Moldova have initiated the process of voluntary amalgamation. PAS holds the majority in 122 of these local councils, the Party of Socialists in 61, and the European Social Democratic Party in 31. How do you see these numbers? And perhaps from here we can also start discussing how political consensus is ensured?
To talk about a national political consensus is premature. We saw how the amendment to Law 225 was voted. Who were those who supported it? The Socialist Party declared from the start that it would not support the reform, but we see that some of the local elected officials representing the party have made certain decisions in relation to certain reform processes and this pleases us. On the other hand, we need to see what the structure of the local public authorities is and who the representatives are coming from.
The latest polls showed that we have a fairly large number of independent candidates among mayors and more and more mayors choose not to be affiliated with political parties, but to go, somehow, supported by the vast majority of residents, without showing their political affiliation.
It’s evident that the representatives of PAS, starting from the idea that the party currently in power is the one that initiated the reform, probably have the most support from the PAS mayors and they are among those who initiate these voluntary amalgamation processes. On the other hand, I don’t believe we should overly politicize this reform, because if it is confined only within the boundaries of a single political party, then we are ensuring a great failure from the start.
So, we were talking about a consensus. We need to discuss with all political formations, to have discussions with mayors, regardless of their political affiliation, to explain to citizens what are the benefits of the reform and what are its long-term effects, not just short-term, in the next four years, but also what awaits them in the long term and what will be the interventions of the state, but also of the external funds that will probably come to the Republic of Moldova and how we will access them.
And then, if we seriously discuss the citizen who is at the center of the reform, we should start from that political parity, without emphasizing who is more responsible for this reform or less responsible.
Obviously, the costs are assumed by the one who implements the reform and, anyway, the pressure and responsibility largely fall on the current Government and the politician who is in power today and who has demonstrated political will to carry out such a controversial, so complex reform and which, unfortunately, was not carried through to the end, even though there were some previous attempts.
But, every time, the political sphere, the political parties, the government have chosen not to take risks and not to go all the way in implementing the reform. It is a political assumption, on one hand, and obviously we have to take that on. On the other hand, we must also have the political maturity to find this consensus, to have ongoing discussions, to explain and to ensure that we will have, in implementing the reform, the support of other political formations as well.
I saw when this concept was presented – the reduction of the number of districts, but I have not yet seen if it has been decided how this map will look. Do we have any updates on this subject today?
I don’t know a final decision yet. Obviously, there is a discussion about the necessity of the second level or, on the contrary, if this one is completely irrelevant and if it has its place in the administrative system.
We believe that yes, and we argue that there must be such an intermediate level, level II, for an integrated development and a correct regional development of the Republic of Moldova. How many regions we will have is already a current topic and we are also to have this level II map. It is certain that we advocate for the preservation of level II, as it is also provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova.
Not necessarily at the district level, as it is today, but we will have a regional level II, with very clear competencies regarding strategic development, planning and land management, regional development and the creation of intercommunal services for citizens. We are about to see this map and what these regions will look like.
Ms. Voloh, I thank you very much for this discussion!
And I thank you too!
Irina Boțu, IPN
Disclaimer: This material was prepared by the IPN Press Agency, within the project “Local Public Administration Reform in Dialogue”, funded by the Ministry of Culture from the Media Subsidy Fund.
