EXTENSION COURSE: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE PUC MINAS – 29/11/2008

EXTENSION COURSE:INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE

PUC MINAS – 29/11/2008

Theme: Experiences in the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte

Speaker: MARIA COELI SIMÕES PIRES – Assistant professor of UFMG and Assistant Secretary of State for Regional Development and Urban Policy

SUMMARY

I – Regionalization and Institutionalization of Metropolitan Regions

II – Metropolitan Governance ModelsIII – Evolution of the Metropolitan Regions within Brazilian

constitutional law – brief notesIV – MRBH Revision of the recent metropolitan trajectory in

MinasV – Metropolitan Region of BH and the State for ResultsVI – Metropolitan Conference and Implementation of the

Administrative BodiesVII – Public Offices of Common Interest and Metropolitan

AgencyVIII – Challenges to governance in the face of urban crisis

and federalism

State Regionalization (metropolitan regions, urban agglomerations and micro-regions), with emphasis on the metropolitan regions

Maria Coeli Simões Pires

I – Regionalization and Institutionalization of Metropolitan Regions

Geographic evidence of the metropolitan phenomenon

Conurbation – physical fusion between citiesIncreased demographic densityMetropolis – increased hierarchy in the urban networkInterdependent urban infrastructure


Geographic phenomenon x Political-juridical organization of the States

Metropolitan territory does not match with the political-territorial division Urban sprawl contiguous to and overlapping into multiple municipalitiesInterdependence Process: underlying factors within the metropolitan regionsPublic Offices of Common Interest – the metropolitan interest


THE METROPOLITAN ISSUE:GEOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND SOCIALPHENOMENON

THAT IMPACTS THE JURIDICAL ORGANIZATION OF THE TERRITORY

Wikipedia Image : São Paulo Landsat (satellite image).


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/S%C3%A3o_Paulo_Landsat_(fotografia_de_sat%C3%A9lite).jpg

Issues: how to institutionalize metropolitan regions?

As a new sphere of governance? Should it possess its own juridical character and political capacity? Should it be an administrative jurisdiction with or without juridical character?Should it be a region of planning?Should it be a region of special services?Should it depend upon an institutional arrangement for regulation?Who should create the metropolitan regions?Should the metropolitan governor be elected or nominated? Should it be a politician or an administrator?How to integrate local governments to metropolitan administration?Can it result in the amalgamation of municipalities?How can the population participate?What must be the strength of the votes of the members of the Metropolitan Councils and other jurisdictions? Government – Municipalities – Society – Productive Sector?


The ability of the Metropolitan Issue to cause a disturbance...

“Municipality - açu (large)” “Estado - mirim (small)”Concentration of GNP, fiscal collection and votersParadox – Concentration of ‘sore spots’

Several political actors tend to lose power with the reorganization


What is already acceptable (Edésio Fernandes)

The ‘local’ in urbanization is the ‘metropolitan’The metropolitan scale of settlement, sanitation, transport (TransMilenio in Bogota, Johannesburg)Metropolitan scale of formal and informal real-estate marketsNecessity for economic efficiency and administrative rationality (effectiveness of public policies; transaction costs; urban governance) Necessity for sustainable developmentNecessity for the territorialization in the metropolitan scale of plans – strategic, regulatory, inductive/positive – and of public policiesNecessity to create specific institutions and processes”


Elements still being debated(Edésio Fernandes)

The nature of the metropolitan phenomenonIdentification of the metropolitan interestThe determination of the political quality of the decision-making processFinancing metropolitan development – Who pays the bills, and how?


II – METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE Models

The international experience reveals several models of governance of metropolitan regions, which, basically, divide into two types:

INSTITUTIONALCOOPERATIVE


METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE MODELS

Vertical or Compulsory (Institutional) Model

Metropolitan Regions created or coordinated by regional or national body, within the terms of the Constitution

vertical organization of the metropolitan region, through legislation edited by a competent body, independent from the municipalities’ consent

Characteristic: Systemic and territorial governance

Horizontal (Cooperative) Model

Metropolitan Regions created or services generated by the agreement between local governments

horizontal organization of the metropolitan area, based on the free association between the local governments.

Characteristic: Governance through projects and through consensuses


International Experiences

Canada: amalgamation of municipalitiesUnited States: multiple models; from voluntary agreements to regional authoritiesEngland: Greater London created in 1960; extinct in the Thatcher Gov.; re-created in 2000.

Power of the economic argument: Global competition between metropolises induce processes of metropolitan integration (reduction of transaction costs)


III – Evolution of the Metropolitan regions within the Brazilian constitutional law – brief notes

Constitution of 1967

Predicted in the Chapter about the “Economic Order” – art. 164 – economic nature of the instituteLegal competence of the UnionConcept of Public Services of Metropolitan Interest


METROPOLITAN REGIONS – Constitution of the Republic of 1988

Constitution of the Republic –

“Chapter IIIOf the Federative StatesArt. 25 (...)§ 3º - The States can, by means of complementary law,

institute metropolitan regions, urban agglomerations and micro-regions, constituted by a group of bordering municipalities, to integrate the organization, the planning and the execution of public offices of common interest.”


Metropolitan Regions – Constitution of the Republic of 1988

Constitution of 1988

Predicted in Title III – “Of the Organization of the State” – federative nature of the instituteLegal Competency of the member-StateConcept of Public Services of Common Interest


Juridical Controversies

Local Interest x Metropolitan InterestEntitlement of the Metropolitan InterestPublic Services of Common InterestMunicipal AutonomyState AutonomyRole of the Union


Three “strong points” of the controversy

Direct Action of Unconstitutionality of 1842

Discussions about the Consortiation Law and the Sanitation Law

Campaign of the Municipal Administrators Plans – Statute of the Cities


IV – MRBH Revision of the recent metropolitan trajectory in Minas

Constitution of the Minas Gerais State of 1998 and the origin of AMBEL

Federal Constitution of 1988 attributed to the States the competency to legislate over metropolitan regionsInspiration in the metropolitan parliament, of ParisPrediction in the State Constitution of 1989Regulation through the Complementary Law nº 26, of the 14th of January 1993


Composition of AMBEL

Complementary Law nº 26, of the 14th of January 1993

Representation of the Governor: 1 representativeRepresentation of the Legislative Assembly: 1 representativeRepresentation of the Mayors: 1 representative of each municipalityRepresentation of the Municipal Councils: 49 municipal councillorsThere were no representatives of the organized civil society


Difficulties of the Model

Formally, the power in AMBEL was with the councillors – disempowering executive powersThe State and the big municipalities, underrepresented, distanced themselvesFew meetings, operational difficulties for its functioningLack of representation by an organized civil societyAMBEL did not obtain legitimacy to promote metropolitan governanceThe large number of members (84) complicate convocations and discussions


Legislative Seminar – Metropolitan Regions (2003)

3 months of discussion in 5 cities of the StateMore than 1200 participants (deputies, mayors, councillors, secretaries of state, experts of the Government, NGOs, syndicates, professional entities, popular movements, etc)Approval of 194 proposals for the administration of the metropolitan regions


State Constitution – Regionalization: New model

(Amendment to the Constitution nº 40, of 25/5/2000)Of Regionalization

Subsection I – General DispositionsArt. 41 – The state will articulate regionally the administrative action,

with the objective of: I – integrate the planning, the organization, and the execution of public offices, of common interest, in areas of intense urbanization; II – contribute to the reduction of regional inequalities, by means of articulated execution of regional and sectoral plans, programs and projects directed towards global development of the collectivity of the same geo-economic and social complex; III – assist the Municipalities of scarce conditions for socioeconomic propulsion, situated in the region, as to integrate to the development process.


State Constitution– Metropolitan Region and Governance

Art. 46 – There will be in each metropolitan region: I – a Metropolitan Assembly; II – a Deliberative Council of Metropolitan Development; III – one Development Agency, with technical and executive character; IV – a Guiding Plan of Integrated Development; V – a Metropolitan Development Fund

§ 1° - The Metropolitan Assembly constitutes the collective body of superior decision and of representation of the State and the municipalities in the metropolitan region, consenting it to: I – define the macro-directories of the global planning of the metropolitan region; II – veto, by a resolution of at least two thirds of its members, resolution emitted by the Deliberative Council of Metropolitan Development

§ 2° - Equal representation is secured, in favour of deliberation, between the State and the Municipalities of the metropolitan region in the Metropolitan Assembly, in the terms of the complementary law.

§ 3° - The Deliberative Council of Metropolitan Development is a collective body of the metropolitan region in which competition occurs to: I – discuss about the planning and the execution of the public offices of common interest; II – elaborate a normative work plan for the implementation and execution of public offices of common interest; III – provoke the elaboration and approve the Guiding Plan of Integrated Development of the metropolitan region; IV – approve the rules of appropriation between the planning of the metropolitan region and the sectoral policies adopted by the public power for the region; V – discuss about the governance of the Metropolitan Development Fund.

§ 4° - The participation of the representatives of the State, the Municipalities of the metropolitan region and the organized civil society is secured in the Deliberative Council of Metropolitan Development. (Article amended by the art. 1º of the Amendment to the Constitution nº 65, of 25/11/2004.)


METROPOLITAN REGIONS – Complementary Legislation

(State Constitution – Art. 42 and subsequent)

Complementary Law nº 88, of the 12 of January of 2006 – PRESENTS A FRAMEWORK FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE GOVERNANCE OF A METROPOLITAN REGION AND THE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT FUND

Complementary Law nº 89, of the 12 of January 2006 – FRAMEWORK FOR THE METROPOLITAN REGION OF BELO HORIZONTE


METROPOLITAN REGION OF BELO HORIZONTE

Itatiaiuçu

Jaboticatuba

Taquaraçu de Minas

Sarzedo M. Campos

Confins

Matozinhos

Florestal

São J.

Bicas

Capim Branco

Nova União

Baldim

Rio Manso

Itaguara

Esmeraldas

Brumadinho

Mateus Leme

Juatuba

Igarapé

São J. Lapa

Pedro Leopoldo

Santa Luzia

Sabará

Vespasiano

Betim

Ibirité

Nova Lima

Caeté

Raposos

Lagoa Santa

Contagem Belo

Horizonte

Rio Acima

Ribeirão das Neves

EXPANSION of the MR:

1.9731.9931.9992.0002.002

Complementary Law nº 88/2006 – Mixed and Plural Model

Art. 4 - (...)Single Paragraph. The State is responsible, within this Complementary Law, to execute

public offices of common interest, directly or through:I – concession or permission;II – associative governance;III – cooperative accord.

Art. 5 - Instruments for metropolitan planning are:I – the Guiding Plan of Integrated Development;II – the Metropolitan Development Fund.

Art. 7 - The governance of the metropolitan region is accountable to:I – the Metropolitan Assembly;II – the Deliberative Council of Integrated Development;III – the Metropolitan Development Agency;IV – the state, municipal and inter-municipal institutions associated to public offices of

common interest in the metropolitan region, in the level of strategic, operational and execution planning.


The governance of the metropolitan state is accountable to:

I – the Metropolitan Assembly;

II – the Deliberative Council of Metropolitan Development;

III – the Metropolitan Development Agency;

IV – the state, municipal, and inter-municipal institutions associatedto public offices of common interest of the metropolitan region,

in the level of strategic, operational and execution planning.

Article 7 of the Complementary Law n. 88/06

Metropolitan Governance Bodies


Other important changes:

Creation of the Sub-secretary of Metropolitan Development, in SedruPrediction of the Metropolitan Development Agency, of technical and executive characterCreation of the Metropolitan Development Fund


Anticipation of the Metropolitan Strategy Planning – New Role for the State in the MRBH

New role in the governance of the Metropolitan Regions by means of:

Rescuing an Effective Planning Strategy;

Presence in the metropolitan space as an inductor, regulator and articulator for the several bodies of Governance;

Participative governance


GOVERNANCE GROUP

Instituted through the Decree nº 44.268, of the 30 March 2006, aimed at:

I – Identifying the projects and planned actions for the metropolitan regions;

II – Promoting the integration of action of the state bodies in the metropolitan regions;

III – Proposing directives to accord the guiding municipal plans to the laws for the use and occupation of soil, within the municipalities that constitute the metropolitan regions, with programs and projects of common metropolitan interest; and

IV – Make possible the structuring of jurisdictions, within the scope of the state, responsible for the governance of metropolitan regions


The metropolitan governance group is composed of:

I – Secretary of State for Regional Development and Urban Policy;

II – Secretary of State for Planning and Governance (coordination);

III – Secretary of State for Economic Development;IV – Secretary of State for Transport and Public Works;V – Secretary of State of the Environment and Sustainable

Development (Dec. nº 44.300, of 23/05/2006)

GOVERNANCE GROUP - Composition


MRBH environmental and urban governance plan (Dec. nº 44.500, of 03/04/07)

OBJECTIVE: Promote the sustainable development of the region, the preservation of its environmental activities and the adequate control of the use and the occupation of the metropolitan soil, integrating the planning and the execution of public and private actions, programs and projects.

COORDENATION: It is the responsibility of the governance group to: promote the inter-sectoral coordination of the State and the bodies of the executive power of the state, with the bodies and entities of public administration, municipalities and with the segments of the civil society and the private initiative, whose action generates impacts on the territorial space of the MRBH.


1st METROPOLITAN CONFERENCE

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT

OF MRBH

Planning and Articulation: Metropolitan Governance Group

METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE Group


V – Metropolitan Region of BH and State for Results

Starting point:

Commitment to the appointments of the Government Plan – Pact for Minas

Maintenance of the vision for the future:

“MAKE MINAS THE BEST STATE TO LIVE IN”. (PMDI 2003-2020) and observance of the long term strategy’s main directions

Qualitative evaluation of the strategies of the first government of Aécio Neves


Contextualization – STATE for RESULTS: Basic Commitments

Fiscal Quality Fiscal equilibrium as a pretext of governmental action Elevation of the strategic investment, simplification and clarification of procedures

Efficient GovernanceSectoral emphasis: quality and productivity of the sectoral expenditure and service to the citizen

Results Monitoring and evaluation: performance of the Government, measured through the evolution of finalistic indicators Governance: Coordination of Government through Result Areas Incentives: Results Agreement of the body / contract through Result Areas


NETWORK OF CITIES

Secure the availability of quality public services at any point in the territory.

Development of a network of creative, dynamic, secure and well-kept cities, with a range of public and private services and host to urban amenities.

Increasing the national and international prominence of the MRBH. Improvement and consolidation of the planning and administrative instruments of the municipalities in Minas Gerais.

Network of Cities

Equity and Well-being

Investment and Business

Competitive Territorial Integration

Environmental Sustainability

State for Results

Integrated perspective if the

Human Capital

Strategic Objectives: Plan and administrate the development of the network of cities of Minas Gerais and accommodate its capacity of provision of services for education, health, sanitation, transport, settlement, access to internet, technological innovation, professional formation and environmental governance;

Strengthen the system for urban planning and governance, especially in the chief-cities; Increase the national and international prominence of the RMBH;Increase the national and international prominence of the RMBH; Amplify the accessibility to basic social services and markets for the population of the municipalities of smaller capacity; Promote the competitive territorial insertion of the network of cities of Minas Gerais in the geo-economically national spaces.

Network of Cities of Minas Gerais: 1999 Situation

Order 2National Metropolis

Order 4Regional Metropolis

Order 5Agglomeration / Urban Centre

Key:

Order 3Regional Metropolis

Order 1Global Metropolis





» Objective

» Scope

Promote the integrated governance of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte, making it more competitive and elevating the quality of life of the metropolitan citizens.

PERMBH – Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte


Provide the metropolitan region with instruments of integratedgovernance for public offices of common interest,notably the metropolitan transport system, the planning andadministration of land use, and the expansion of thelogistic infrastructure. Dissemination of the Choque de Gestão in the municipalities of MRBH, with the incentive touse methods of public governance for results and fiscal quality

MRBH Structural Project

ChallengeEmpower the utilization of the comparative advantages of

the MRBH, with the effective implementation of metropolitan governance, creating synergy between municipal, state, and federal governments.

AimPromote the integrated governance of the Metropolitan

Region of Belo Horizonte, making it more competitive and improving the quality of life of the metropolitan citizens.

Drive the regional development.


PE MRBH Actions

SIRUS – Integrated System for the Regulation of Land UseEnvironmental and Urbanistic Governance Plan of MRBH (guides and urbanistic actions)Implementation of the Metropolitan Governance bodies (Assembly, Council and Agency)Support Program for the Agrarian Regulation (with emphasis in Vespasian)Metropolitan Transport Corridors (Linha Verde, Duplicação MG-20, MG-424, Anel de Contorno do AITN/DER e Anel de Contorno Norte/DNIT)Actions for urbanistic control through integrated action with the Environmental System (application of the Police Power)


VI – Metropolitan Conference of MRBH and

Implementation of Administrative Bodies

Preparatory actions: Convocation for conference decree (11/06/07) Constitution of the executive commission (15/06/07) Accord with the ALMG Meeting for the articulation of the State secretaries and entities

Illustration of the metropolitan governmental programs Lecture/Thematic meetings/Workshops

Internal regiments of the conference, of the Assembly and the Council

Regulation of the Assembly, the Council and the Fund Preliminary studies for the elaboration of the Law Project for the

creation of the Metropolitan Agency

METROPOLITAN CONFERENCE – Preliminary providences


Institutional arrangement for the administration of the MRBH implementation

Metropolitan ConferenceDate: 20th and 21st of August 2007Location: ALMGRelease of the Parliamentary Front for the MRBHOwnership of the Metropolitan Assembly and the Deliberative Council of Metropolitan DevelopmentSignature of the decree for the regulation of the Metropolitan FundDelivery of the Law Project for the creation of the Metropolitan Agency


Other “institutionalities”

Parliamentary Front

Metropolitan Forum

Granbel

Metropolitan ObservatoryMaria Coeli Simões Pires

Metropolitan Assembly - CompositionCOMPLEMENTARY LAE nº 88/2006 ART. 10 - ...

I - FOUR MEMBERS OF THE STATE EXECUTIVE POWER, INDICATED BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE, AND A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY;

II - THE MAYOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF THE MRBH.

§1º - THE VOTE OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES IN THE METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY WILL HAVE A WEIGHT EQUIVALENT TO HALF THE VOTES IN THE PLENARY.

Belo Horizonte

Contagem

Betim

Other MunicipalitiesGovernor of the

State

Assembly

Civil Society

Composition of the Metropolitan Council: 16 voters

Belo Horizonte

Contagem

Betim

Demais Municípios

Governador do Estado

Assembléia

Sociedade Civil

The deliberations of the council will be approved by the vote of two thirds of its members.

SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS


VII – Public Offices of Common Interest and Metropolitan Agency

Categories of public offices of common interest

PlanningRegulation/ControlInformationProvision of Services


Centralized Secretary of State (SEDRU)

Direct autarky (Metropolitan Agency)

foundation Decentralized public company

mixed economy society

Execution of publicfunctionsof common Indirect concession or permissioninterest

public consortium (public or civil

association) Associative

governance cooperation accord

Deliberative jurisdictionsMaria Coeli Simões Pires

BENCHMARKING AGENCY– Some models

São Paulo: Public companySalvador: Mixed Economy SocietyCuritiba: Autarky Porto Alegre: AutarkyRecife: Public FoundationGrande ABC Agency: NGOPlambel: Autarky (MG)


Institutional forms considered for the integration of the organization, planning and execution of public offices of common interest

Secretary of State

AUTARKYPublic FoundationPublic Association (Consortium)Territorial Autarky

Public companyMixed Economy Society

Oscip

Concessionaries

Permitted

Body for Direct Administration

Public Entities of Public Right

Private Rights of States

Private Entity of Private Right, profit-making purposes

Private Entity of Private Right

Third sector, non-profit


Project for the Complementary Law nº 28/2007 –

CREATED THE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE METROPOLITAN REGION OF BELO HORIZONTE - MRBH AGENCY.

Substitution nº 1


Choice of AUTARKY – Metropolitan Agency – Request for specific Law

CF: Art. 37, incision XIX – “only through specific law can an autarky be created and the institution of the public company be authorized, of mixed economy society and foundation, appropriated to the complementary law, in the latter case, define the action areas”.

Art. 173, § 1º - The law will establish the juridical statute of the public company, of the mixed economy society and its subsidiaries (...)


VIII – Challenges to governance in the face of urban crisis and federalism

Determinant factors:Exclusionary and unsustainable economic development model;Conception of segregating cities / segregation of povertyRisky urbanismPublic regulation of the territorial order with discriminatory propensity / Illegitimate private governance – restricted citizenry / deficit of social policies

Reality: Transgressional and disordered cities; presence of urban infirmities; extreme social inequalities; environmental precariousness.

“Take the institutions and the society away from urbanistic illiteracy and create consciousness of the dimension of the problems.” (Ermínia Maricato)


Metropolitan Frame

Incitement of the infra-structural problems (transports, traffic);Aggravation of urban violence;Scarcity of resources;Inequality between municipalities (BBC axis with 87% of the metropolitan GNP).


Federative Frame

Artificial federalismUnequal division of resources and of responsibilitiesRecrudescence of the practice of instituting social contributions (indivisible)Discouragement of cooperation – municipalism at whatever price


Dilemmas X Solutions

Redistributive policy of national character

X

Need for redistribution of regional/micro-regional character by the State

Federalization of the redistributive policy

Union – Percentage for redistribution between big regions

States – Percentage for internal redistribution


Dilemmas X Solutions

Municipalism at whatever price

X

Metropolitan governance

Resolution of conflicts between municipalities – fiscal warOver-partisan treatment of metropolitan issuesInteraction between municipal councils and Legislative AssemblyArticulation within the range of metropolitan jurisdiction


Compatibilization - Making Compatible

Mixed plural model – Vertical and horizontal arrangementsConsortia are instruments that can potentialize the consensus in metropolitan governanceState Complementary Law guarantees the right of citizens to good public governanceRegional governance as a right for the citizens, and not as an authority of the federative entities.


Final Comments


Elaborated by: Maria Coeli Simões PiresCollaboration: Gustavo Gomes Machado

Documents

EXTENSION COURSE: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE PUC MINAS – 29/11/2008