Communities Finance Officers Association
This study was made possible through
financial support provided by the Local
Government and Public Service Reform
Initiative of the Open Society Institute
(OSI/LGI).
Municipalities Consolidation in Armenia:
Preliminary Study
Yerevan 2008
1
Contents
1. Foreword......................................................................................................................................3
2. Analysis of multi-settlement municipalities ................................................................................4
3. Analysis of the former “rural soviet” system ..............................................................................8
4. International experience of municipalities consolidation ..........................................................14
5. The goals and criteria of municipalities consolidation ..............................................................24
6. Annexes .....................................................................................................................................26
2
1. Foreword
The existence of numerous small and weak municipalities is one of the several problems of
Armenian local self – government system. Consolidation of the municipalities is one of the
solutions of the mentioned problem.
The consolidation issue is included now in both the Government Plan of the Republic of Armenia
(adopted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia on 26 June 2007) and Poverty
Reduction Strategic Plan (approved by the Government of the Republic of Armenia on 8 August
2003), as well as in the draft of the reviewed variant of the Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan
(PRSP – 2). Particularly, “...practical actions will be taken towards consolidation of
municipalities” is mentioned in the Government Plan of the Republic of Armenia (paragraph
4.2.2). In the Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan one can find “Within frames of poverty reduction
activities consolidation of municipalities and reduction of their number is considered to be
important in the sphere of local self – government...” (paragraph 6.3.1.2). “...consolidation of
municipalities is important...” is mentioned in the draft of the reviewed variant of the Poverty
Reduction Strategic Plan (paragraph 8.1.1).
According to the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of the Republic of Armenia 930
municipalities were created in Armenia in 1995, consisting of 47 urban, 871 rural and 12
Yerevan district municipalities (currently there are 926 municipalities, from which 48 are urban
municipalities). It should be mentioned that there are significant differences among both urban
and rural municipalities related to the number of population, as well as the existence of land
areas, social and economic infrastructures within municipalities’ administrative boundaries.
The municipalities of Armenia differ from each other by thousand times by the number of
population, as well as by their financial and human resources. Despite these differences all
municipalities functioning according to the requirements of the same law. All municipalities are
obliged to provide the whole list of services stipulated by the law. Each citizen should be
provided by the same minimum “bouquet” of services by local self-government bodies
irrespective in which municipality they live.
The differences among the number of population of municipalities have important role because
the Government considers that indicator to be very important when implements policies in the
sphere of local-self government. Particularly, according to the Law on Financial Equalization the
number of population is a key factor for calculation of equalization grants. As a result of
implementation of the mentioned law the municipalities with small number of population receive
very small part of anticipated total amount of equalization grants. It means that in this case the
“number of population” factor gains exceptional role and importance, consequently the gap
between financial capacities of small and big municipalities becomes bigger.
Another problem is the absence of second level of local-self government, as a result of which
several regional problems which are typical for local-self government are not solved.
Based on the requirement of the Law on Local-Self Government of the Republic of Armenia the
property necessary for provision of municipal services have been transferred to the
municipalities by the Government’s decision in 1997. Actually the property has been dispersed
among all municipalities and most of the municipalities do not have necessary infrastructures
and technical means for provision of services. To have necessary property the municipalities
need serious financial investments which is unrealistic for the near future.
If we add that the percentage of municipal budgets in consolidated budget is only 6-7 %, which
is a very small amount in absolute term, the “sad conditions” of small municipalities becomes
more obvious. Investigations of all the municipal budgets of some years show that at least 45 %
3
of the municipalities can only pay wages and cover municipal hall maintenance costs by own
financial resources. The opportunity for those municipalities to provide services stipulated by the
law is trifling. About 80 % of the municipalities do not have fund budgets. It means that the
development of the municipality and changes in the existing situation are excepted.
It should be also mentioned that most of the municipalities do not have technical means and
specialists necessary for provision of some services, involvement of which will demand serious
unjustified expenditures.
2. Analysis of multi-settlement municipalities
As it is shown in Table 1, there are 58 multi-settlement municipalities in Armenia. The rural
municipality with the biggest number of settlements is Geghi municipality of Syunik marz,
which includes 6 villages/settlements. The prevalent number of settlements in multi-settlement
municipalities varies from 2 to 3.
Multi-settlement municipalities could be divided into following groups:
• The municipalities which include abandoned settlements.
• The municipalities which include “season populated” settlements.
• The municipalities which include “railway station” settlements.
The most part of abandoned settlements was previously populated by Azerbaijanians. After their
leaving the settlements become unpopulated. The number of abandoned settlements is 12. Some
part of municipalities which include “season populated” settlements don’t have permanent
residents and become populated during summer (related with agricultural works). These places
serve as so cold “dachia”. The number of “season populated” settlements is 6.
The municipalities which include “railway station” settlements consist of two settlements -one
village plus settlement near railway station. The number of these type of settlements is 5.
Related to the distances from the center of municipalities to the included settlements have the
following picture: the longest distance -20 km has Pyunik village of Artavaz municipality in
Kotayk marz. The minimal distance has the village near Pambak railway station of Pambak
municipality in Lori marz, which in fact amalgamated. A distance from populated settlements to
their centers mostly varies from 2-5 km.
It is noticeable that phone calls with heads of municipalities reveal the number of preposterous
facts. First, related with the names of municipalities. Accordingly one name is mentioned in the
Law on Administrative-Territorial Division but actually the village calls itself in other way.
Second, there is a case when the lands of the village are not included in the administrative
territory of municipality and in fact it is out of it (Kaqavaberd village of Bardzrashen
municipality). Third, there are also opposite cases when the villages/settlements exist but they
are not mentioned in the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division.
4
Table 1. Multisettlement municipalities by marzes (regions)1
N
Municipality
Settlements
1
Ashtarak
Ashtarak city
Mughni village
Avan village
Khnusik village
Artashatavan village
Lusaghbyur village,
Nigatun village
Mastara village
Dzoragyugh village,
2
3
4
5
Avan
Artashatavan
Mastara
Sasunik
Distance
from the
center of
municipality
Aragacotn marz (region)
Sasunik village
Karinvillage,
Notice
2.5 km
4km
4 km
8 km
1 house
1 km
populated 4
families
2 km
refugees
Ararat marz
6
Bardzrashen
Bardzrashen village
Kaqavaberd village,
13 km
abandoned (its
land was not
included into
Bardzrashen
territory by the
state Cadastre)
Armavir marz
7
Paraqar
Paraqar village
Tairov village
1 km
Gegharkuniq marz
8
Sevan
9
Aigut
10
Getahovit
11
Kalavan
12
Koutakan
Sevan city
Gagarin village
Aigut village
Chapkout village
Getahovit village
Lernahovit village
Nshqharq village
Kalavan village
Barepat village
Koutakan village
Zariver village
4km
7-8 km
5km
15 km
abandoned
there is no
permanent
residents
4 km
populated
300-400 m,
populated
Lori marz
13
14
Alaverdi
Akhtala
Alaverdi city
Akner village
Sanahin
Madan
Akhtala city
The village near
clinic
12 km
6 km
6.5 km
5 km
1
populated
Data on distances from the center of municipality to the included settlements are collected by phone calls with
heads of municipalities.
5
15
16
Tumanyan
Shamlough
17
Stepanavan
18
Arjut
19
Halavar
20
Dzoramut
21
Medovka
22
Mets Ayroum
23
Meghvahovit
24
Saratovka
25
Pambak
26
Odzoun
Svines
Tumanyan city
The village near
Cober station
Shamlough city
Verin Akhtala village
Bendik village
Stepanavan city
Armanis village
Arjut village
The village near
Arjut station
Halavar village
Gyuludarra village
Haydarli village
Qilisa village
Dzoramut village
Gogavan village
Medovka village
Kruglaya shishka
village
Mets Ayroum village
Poqr Ayroum village
Meghvahovit village
Noramut village
Saratovka village
Getavan village
Pambak village
The village near
Pambak railway
station
Odzoun village
Amoj village
2.5 km
1.5 km
10-12 houses
7 km
4 km
abandoned
populated
6 km
1km
3.5 km
1 km
1 km
temporary
population
temporary
population
2.5km
populated
2 km
populated
3 km
refuges
800 m
Kotayk marz
27
Artavaz
28
Meghradzor
Artavaz village
Pyunik village
Meghradzor village
Gorgoch village
20 km
populated
2 km
populated
Shirak marz
29
Alvar
30
Aghin
31
Berdashen
32
Garnarich
33
Gtashen
34
Zarishat
35
Zorakert
36
Isahakyan
Alvar village
Aravet village
Aghin village
The village near
Aghin station
Berdashen village
Paghakn village
Garnarich village
Eghnadgour
Gtashen village
Kamkhout village
Zarishat village
Erizak village
Zorakert village
Darik village,
Isahakyan village
2 km
abandoned
2 km
1 km
1-2 km
populated
1800 m
populated
1 km
abandoned
4.5 km
populated
6
37
38
Caghkout
Hacik
39
Gharibjanyan
40
Geghanush
Bardzrashen village
Caghkout village
Lorasar village
Hacik village
Hacikavan village
Gharibjanyan village
The village near
station
4 km
7-8 families
2 km
abandoned
1 km
Syunik marz
41
Geghi
42
Darbas
43
Lernadzor
44
Cav
45
Shurnukh
46
Syuniq
47
Njdeh
48
Vardanidzor
Geghanush village
Gomaran village
Geghi village
Geghavanq village
Kard village
Kicq village
Verin Geghavanq
village
Qarout village
Darbas village
Shamb village
Lernadzor village
Kavchout village
Musalam village
Nerqin Giratagh
village
Verin Giratagh
village
Poukhrout
Katnarat
Cav village
Shishkert village
Shurnukh village
Aghbulagh village
Vanand village
Dzorak village
Syuniq village
Bargushat village
Dicmajri village
Khordzor village
Sznak village
Njdeh village
Cghouny village
Vardanidzor village
Ajgedzor village
Tkhkout village
2.5 km
2 km
7 km
9 km
7 km
populated 25
families
Around 1-2
families in each
village
12 km
6 km
13 km
6 km
17 km
17 km
11km
13 km
11km
400 residents
Both Verin and
Nerqin Giratagh
are abondoned
doesn’t mentioned
in the law but
exists
10 houses
5 km
4 km
3 km
1.5km
2 km
17 families
1.5 km
2 km
20 families
Vayots Dzor marz
49
Jermuk
50
Areni
51
Gnishik
Jermuk city
Kechout village
Areni village
Amaghou village
Gnishik village
Mozrov village
5.5km
11-13 km
8 km
7
abondoned
abondoned,
Mozrov village is
the center of
community
52
53
54
Gomq
Zaritap
Hermon
55
Saravan
56
Vardahovit
Gomq village
Akhta village
Kapoujt village
Zaritap village
Horadis village
Hermon village
Arates village
Kalasar village
Saravan village
Ughedzor village
Vardahovit
Getikvanq village
Sevjair village km
4.5 km
3 km
abandoned
18 km
abondoned in 1962
3 km
3 km
8 km
season population
5 km
1.5 km
season population
Taush marz
57
Ajgehovit
58
Khachardzan
Ajgehovit village
Kaian village
Khachardzan village
Chermakavan village
Geghatap village
4 km
populated
7km
abandoned
15km refugees
3. Analysis of the former “rural soviet” system
The examination of the former system (division into rayons and rural soviets) in three marzes
(Aragatsotn, Ararat and Armavir) allows identifying the following patterns:
1. The number of existing rural municipalities (in the context of marz) is about 2.5 times
bigger than former rural soviets. Thus, in Aragatsotn marz formerly acted 45 rural soviets
instead of current 106 rural municipalities, which means that the number was increased
2.35 times. In Ararat marz instead of former 39 rural soviets now 93 rural municipalities
are functioning -the number was increased 2.38 times. For Armavir marz the former 35
rural soviets were replaced by 94 rural municipalities, which means the number is
increases on 2.68 times.
2. By the number of included settlements the rural soviets varied from 2 to 6 settlements
(the picture of three marzes review). The rural soviet, which includes the biggest number
of settlements, is Geghakert rural soviet-6 settlements. In general the number of
settlements included in rural soviet varies from 1 to 3.
3. Reviewing the distances between the soviet centers and included settlements it could be
concluded that there are some patterns in terms of former rayons. For example, in the
former Ashtarak rayon of Aragatsotn marz the longest distance between center of rural
soviet and the settlement in it’s territory is 5 km and the prevalent number of distances
varies from 1 to 3 km. In Talin rayon of the same Aragatsotn marz the longest distance is
19 km-Kaqavadzor rural council. And the dominant distances is in the frame of 4-12 km.
In the examined three marzes the longest distance from the center of rural soviet to
included settlement is in Bardzrashen rural soviet of Artashat rayon (BardzrashenKaqavadzor, 29km)
8
Table 2. The Former Rural Soviets and their Settlements by Marzes (regions) and Former
Rayons
N
1
2
Rural Soviets
The distance from
the settlement to the
center of Rural soviet
(km)
Aragacotn marz (45 rural soviets, 106 rural municipalities)
Ashtarak rayon (13 rural soviets, 26 settlements )
Avan
Aragacotn
3
Artashavan
4
Arouch
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Byurakan
Karbi
Kosh
Dzorap
Voskevaz
Sasunik
Ujan
Parpi
13
Oshakan
1
Aragats
2
3
Apnagyugh
Ernjatap
4
Ttujour
Included Settlements
Avan v. (v.-village)
Lernarot v.
Aragacotn s. (s.-settlement)
Nor Edesia s.
Artashavan v.
Saghmosavan v.
Arouch v.
Nor Amanos v.
Shamiram v..
Byurakan v.
Antarout v.
Orgov v.
Karbi v.
Ohanavan v.
Ushi v.
Kosh v.
Dzorap v.
Voskevaz v.
Agarak v.
Voskehat v.
Sasunik s.
Ujan v.
Parpi v.
Bazmagxbyur v.
Nazrvan v.
Oshakan v.
3
3
1
5
5
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
Aparani rayon (11 rural soviets, 18 settlements )
5
6
7
8
Lousagyugh
Mravian
Nigavan
Shenavan
9
10
Vardenis
Vardenout
11
Qouchak
Aragats v.
Caghkashen v.
Apnagyugh v.
Ernjatap v.
Norashen v.
Ttujour v.
Dzoragloukh v.
Dzqnagh v.
Lousagyugh v.
Mravian v.
Nigavan v.
Shenavan v.
Hartavan v.
Vardenis v.
Vardenout v.
Arai v.
Qouchak v.
Moulqi v. (under subordination of Aparan
settlement council)
9
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
Aragats rayon (10 rural soviets, 22 settlements)
1
Alagiaz
2
Berqarat
3
Geghadir
4
Derek
5
Caghkahovit
6
Cilqar
7
Hnaberd
8
Meliqgyugh
9
Ria Taza
10
Vardablur
1
2
Ashnak
Areg
3
4
Arteni
Zovasar
5
Katnaghbyur
Alagiaz v.
Avshen v.
Jamshlou v.
Sipan v.
Berqarat v.
Amre Taza v.
Geghadir v.
Norashen v.
Derek v.
Ortachia v.
Caghkahovit v.
Sangiar v.
Cilqar v.
Gegharot v.
Lernapar v.
Hnaberd s.
Geghadzor v.
Meliqgyugh v.
Miraq v.
Ria Taza v.
Shenkani v.
Vardablur v.
5
2
3
4
4
3
3
1
5
4
4
4
Talin rayon (11 rural soviets, 40 settlements )
6
7
8
9
10
11
Karmrashen
Kaqavadzor
Hakko
Mastara
Nerqin Sasunashen
Camaqsar
Ashnak v.
Areg v.
Hacashen v.
Arteni s.
Zovasar v.
Garnahovit v.
Katnaghbyur v.
Davtashen v.
Irind v.
Verin Sasunashen v.
Karmrashen v.
Akunq v.
Eghnik v.
Vosketas v.
Shgharshik v.
Kaqavadzor v.
Agarak v.
Avtona v.
Baioz v.
Dian v.
Hakko v.
Gialto v.
Sorik v.
Mastara v.
Caghkasar v.
Dzorasar v.
Nerqin Sasunashen v.
Nerqin Bazmaberd v.
Partizak v.
Verin Bazmaberd v.
Camaqsar v.
Zarnja v.
10
6
3
5
5
11
10
5
2
8
15
8
3
19
4
5
6
3
9
12
3
2
Talin settlement council
Aragats settlement
council
Nor Artik v.
Souser v.
Ghabaghtapa v.
Dashtadem v.
Barogh.
(All the tree under subordination of Talin)
Getap
Tlik
(Both under subordination of Aragats)
5
3
6
5
8
9
12
Ararat marz (39 rural soviets, 93 rural municipalities)
Ararat rayon (14 rural soviets, 27 settlements )
1
Aigavan
2
Avshar
3
4
Ararat
Aralez
5
Armash
6
Eraskh
7
Lousashogh
8
9
Lousarat
Kirov
10
11
12
Shidlou
Shirazlou
Sovetashen
13
Urcadzor
14
Poqr Vedi
Aigavan v.
Vanashen v.
Avshar v.
Khalisa v.
Ararat v.
Aralez v.
Engija v.
Armash v.
Sourenavan s.
Eraskh v.
Paruir Sevak v.
Lousashogh v.
Lanjar v.
Lanjanist v.
Urcalanj v.
Lousarat v.
Set. after Kirov.
Nor Ughi s..
Set. near vine factory
Shidlou v.
Shirazlou v.
Sovetashen v.
Vardashat v.
Urcadzor v.
Shaghap v.
Poqr Vedi v.
Nor Kianq v.
4
4
2
5
9
5
4
7
3
2
5
8
3
Artashat rayon (14 rural soviets, 39 settlements )
1
Aigezard
2
Aigestan
3
Arevshat
4
5
6
Baghramian
Bardzrashen
Dalar
Aigezard v.
Aigepat v.
Narek v.
Qaghcrashen v.
Aigestan v.
Kanachout v.
Arevshat v.
Abovyan v.
Ditak v.
Jrashen.
Baghramian v.
Azatavan v.
Berqanoush v.
Bardzrashen v.
Lanjarat v.
Kaqavaberd v.
Dalar v.
1
6
3
3
1
3
4
1
1
4
29
11
7
8
9
10
Dvin
Masis
Mkhchan
Mrganoush
11
Nsahavan
12
13
14
Shahumyan
Vostan
Verin Artashat
Mrgavan v.
Dvin v.
Verin Dvin v.
Hnaberd v.
Masis v.
Araqsavan v.
Bourastan v.
Dimitrov v.
Mkhchan v.
Mrgavet v.
Hovtashen v.
Mrganoush v.
Getazat v.
Deghdzout v.
Vardashen v.
Nsahavan v.
Byuravan v.
Shahumyan v.
Vostan v.
Verin Artashat v.
Berdik v.
Norashen v.
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
5
2
1
1
1
3
1
Masis rayon (11 rural soviets, 23 settlements )
1
2
Aintap
Arbat
3
Geghanist
4
Dashtavan
5
Darakert
6
7
8
Dostloug
Kalinin
Marmarashen
9
Nizami
10
11
Ranchpar
Sarvanlar
Aintap v.
Arbat v.
Zahmet v.
Geghanist v.
Azatashen v.
Argavand v.
Getapnia v.
Dashtavan v.
Zangilar v.
Darakert s.
Ghukasavan v.
Norabac v.
Dostloug v.
Demurchi v.
Hovtashat
Kalinin s.
Marmarashen v.
Arevaghbyur v.
Jrahovit v.
Nizami v.
Sayat-Nova v.
Ranchpar v.
Sarvanlar v
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
Armavir marz (35 rural soviets, 94 rural municipalities)
Hoktemberyan rayon (16 rural soviets, 36 settlements )
1
Armavir
2
Bambakashat
3
Getashen
Armavir city
Arevik v.
Haikavan v.
Bambakashat v.
Jrashen v.
Getashen v.
Berqashat v.
Nor Kesaria s.
4
1
2
5
3
12
4
5
6
7
Zartonq
Jdanov
Lenughy
Loukashin
8
9
10
Hoktember
Margara
Mrgashat
11
Nalbandian
12
Nor Armavir
13
Janfida
14
Tandzout
15
Vardashen
16
Voroshilov
1
2
Dalarik
Ervandashat
3
4
Lernagog
Houshakert
Shenavan v.
Zartonq v.
Artashar v.
Eghegnout v.
Jdanov s.
Lenughy s.
Araqs s.
Jerzinsky s.
Loukashin s.
Khanjyan s.
Noravan v.
Hoktember v.
Margara v.
Mrgashat v.
Sovetakan v.
Nalbandian v.
Nor Artages v.
Nor Armavir v.
Amasia v.
Janfida v.
Pshatavan v.
Tandzout v.
Ajgeshat v.
Argavand v.
Vardashen v.
Araghap v.
Eraskhahun v.
Voroshilov s.
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
3
2
Baghramyan rayon (6 rural soviets, 15 settlements )
5
6
Miasnikyan
Qarakert
Dalarik s.
Ervandashat v.
Bagaran v.
Lernagog s.
Houshakert v.
Artamet v.
Koghbavan v.
Vanand v.
Talvorik v.
Miasnikyan s.
Arevadasht v.
Baghramyan s.
Qarakert v.
Argina v.
Shenik av.
3
4
9
6
3
5
6
10
4
Ejmiatsin (13 rural soviets, 42 settlements)
1
Aknalich
2
Aghavnatoun
3
4
5
Aragac
Arshalujs
Baghramian
Aknalich s.
Taronik v.
Aghavnatoun v.
Doghs v.
Lernamerdz v.
Amberd v.
Aragac v.
Caghkalanj v.
Arshalujs v.
Baghramian s.
Norakert s.
4
2
3
3
2
2
13
6
7
8
Gaj
Geghakert
Lenoughi
9
Merdzavan
10
Mousaler
11
12
13
Shahumyan
Jrarat
Paraqar
Gaj s.
Aknashen v.
haikashen v.
Geghakert v.
Ciacan v.
Caghkounq v.
Haytagh v.
Hovtamej v.
Ferik v.
Lenoughi v.
Atarbekyan v.
Aratashen v.
Griboedov v.
Merdzavan s.
Ajgek s.
Mousaler s.
Arevashat v.
Voskehat s.
Ptghounq s.
Shahumyan v.
Ajgeshat v.
Dasht v.
Mrgastan v.
The settlement near poultry farm
Jrarat v.
Apaga v.
Araqs v.
Lousagyugh v.
Metsamor v.
Paraqar v.
Tairov s.
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
2
1
5
4
3
2
2
4. International experience of municipalities consolidation
Coming from the importance of the municipalities’ consolidation issue in Armenia, some aspects
of consolidation of municipalities in some countries are presented below.
As the data provided in the table of Annex 3 show, the number of municipalities has been
seriously changed in list of countries during last about half century. The number of
municipalities has been reduced by 3, 51, 69 and even 90 percent during that period.
Examining in detail the experience of Latvia and Estonia, one can say that the consolidation of
municipalities is a quite sensitive issue. Both population and local self – government bodies
usually refuse consolidation mainly coming from personal mercenary incentives. That is why
even in case of the existence of carefully developed and well-grounded consolidation concept
and Law on Territorial Reform it is difficult to consolidate the municipalities.
Let’s refer to the experience of some countries on consolidation of municipalities.
Greece
In 1997 a government plan for the re-organisation of the first tier of local government was
approved by an extraordinary congress of the National Union of Municipalities. The so-called
14
“Capodistrias-Plan” was not just a plan to merge municipalities, but also a national and regional
development and works programme, with a time scope of five years (1997-2001). As a result of
implementation of the “Capodistrias-Plan” the total number of municipalities has been reduced
by more than 80%. This percentage would be even higher if the metropolitan areas of Athens and
Thessaloniki, which were exempted from the consolidation-plan and include more than 150
municipalities, were not included in calculation of consolidation indicator. The average
population of the municipalities climbed up from about 1.600 to more than 11.000, while the
average number of municipalities in each prefecture fell from 116,5 to 20,66 units.
Table 1. Distribution of the Municipalities by Number of Population
Before (1996) and After (1999) Implementation of the “Capodistrias Plan”
Population
Up to 300
Up to 500
Up to 1000
Up to 2000
Up to 5000
Up to 10000
Up to 20000
Up to 50000
Up to 100000
Up to 200000
More than 200000
Total
Number of
municipalities
(1996)
2043
1180
1357
672
337
102
48
54
24
6
2
5825
Percentage
(%)
35,07
20,26
23,30
11,54
5,79
1,75
0,82
0,93
0,41
0,10
0,03
100
Number of
municipalities
(1999)
33
14
46
93
380
281
95
56
27
6
2
1033
Percentage
(%)
3,19
1,36
4,45
9,00
36,79
27,20
9,20
5,42
2,61
0,58
0,19
100
Source: Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization, 2000
Latvia
Much of Latvia is now sparsely populated. One third of 2.35 million population lives in Riga.
1.23 million Latvians scattered across an area of roughly 64,000 km2, a territory the size of
Ireland. The population of Latvia tends to reside in widely dispersed settlements. This is
reflected in the characteristics of the municipalities.
Table 2. Distribution of the Municipalities by Number of Population (2001)
Population range
350-1.000
1.000-1.500
1.500-2.000
2.000-3.000
3.000-5.000
5.000-10.000
10.000-50.000
50.000-100.000
100.000 and more
Total
Number of
municipalities
182
138
77
68
39
23
20
3
2
552
Percentage of
population
5%
7%
6%
7%
6%
7%
12 %
17 %
33 %
100%
15
Percentage of
municipalities
33.0 %
25.0 %
13.9 %
12.3 %
7.1 %
4.2 %
3.6 %
0.5 %
0.4 %
100 %
As shown in Table 2, only 25 municipalities have population over 10.000. The number of
population of another 23 municipalities is between 5.000 and 10.000. 70 % of the municipalities
have less than 2.000 inhabitants and fully one third of them have less than 1.000. About 20 % of
the national population lives in municipalities with fewer than 2.000 inhabitants. Roughly onethird of the nation’s population live in municipalities with fewer than 5.000 inhabitants. Between
1989 and 2001, Latvia’s population declined by 13 %. Much of this loss occurred in rural areas.
In the absence of amalgamation, the number of very small municipalities is likely to increase.
Governement’s Proposal
The Government began the process of amalgamation in 1998 with the passage of the Law on
Administrative Territorial Reform. The Law defines the aim of the reform: “to establish
administrative territories with local (and regional) authorities able to develop economically and
provide quality services to inhabitants.” To oversee this effort, the law stipulates creation of a
council for administrative and territorial reform (hereafter - Territorial Reform Council),
comprised of representatives from the Union of Local and Regional Governments and the
Government. The Department of Local Government Affairs under the Minister for Public
Administration Reform was designated to spearhead the effort.
The department’s work began with the commission of studies in all 26 regions. Under terms of
reference approved by the Territorial Reform Council, these studies were to cover a wide range
of topics. These included:
1. Land area and use;
2. Population and social indicators (personal income, number of unemployed, birth-and
death-rates, migration trends);
3. Housing conditions;
4. Transportation and communication infrastructure (road, bus, rail, and telecom);
5. Intermunicipal patterns of commuting and shopping;
6. Social infrastructure (number of schools and social care facilities, number of family
doctors, use of health facilities outside the municipality);
7. Economic infrastructure, including consumption of power and gas, water supply, sewage
treatment systems and solid waste management.
The studies were to survey economic conditions, including the number of currently operating
business objects, classified by form of ownership, type of activity, and number of employees.
Data on municipalities were necessary to be gathered, including the following:
1. Breakdown of municipal revenues (with particular focus on intermunicipal payments);
2. Expenditures disaggregated by function;
3. Organization showing the number of deputies and municipal staff along with their
respective educational backgrounds, work experience, and performance evaluations;
4. Checklist of functions performed by the municipalities, along with their volume and
quality.
In principle, this mass of data was to be the basis for defining the boundaries of the amalgamated
municipalities. Article 10 of the Law stated that territorial reform was to be based on the
following:
1. The long term development prospects of the municipality area;
2. The relation between the number of inhabitants and the size of the area, with coefficients
of economic development;
3. The revenue base;
4. The level of infrastructure required to perform municipal functions;
5. Demographic characteristics;
6. Economic, geographical, and historical unity;
16
7. Accessibility of municipal services;
8. Other conditions.
The following 4 criteria according to which the municipalities should be amalgamated were
developed based on the studies:
1. The minimum number of population shall be 5.000 inhabitants
2. There shall be a developed center with at least 2.000 inhabitants
3. Distance of the settlement from the municipality center shall be no more than 30 km
4. Road access connecting all parts of the municipality to the center
This process yielded the so-called “102 proposal” according to which 93 consolidated pagasts
and towns (termed novads) and 9 cities (including 7 existing republic cities) would be created.
Under the proposal, the number of small municipalities would be drastically reduced. As shown
in Table 3, no novad would have a population less than 4,500. Half would have population
between 4.500 and 10.000. Another one-quarter would have population between 10.000 and
20.000. According to the mentioned proposal, the number of larger municipalities would remain
essentially unchanged.
Table 3. Characteristics of Proposed Novads
Number of novads
Populaton
4.500-10.000
10.000-20.000
20.000-30.000
30.000 and more
Novad
Percentage
50
27
15
10
49 %
26 %
15 %
10 %
Number of population
Person
Percentage
(thousand)
340
14 %
376
16 %
372
16 %
1,272
54 %
With the completion of the initial boundary proposal, the Law calls for the preparation of
specific amalgamation plans for each novad. The purpose of these studies is to evaluate the
improvements in staff quality and fiscal performance that would be expected from
amalgamation. The process is just in the beginning. Such a plan has been created only for
Tukums novad.
The amalgamation proposal has run into some opposition. Since 1998 the Legislation was put in
effect, only 21 municipalities (less than 4 % of the total) have been consolidated. This is partly
due to resistance from municipal councilors and council chairmen, many of whom fear losing
their jobs. But it also reflects a lack of support by the rural population, who fear losing contact
with familiar officials who can assist them in dealing with government bureaucracy.
According to a public opinion survey (see Table 4) rural residents also fear that their interests
will be submerged once their pagasts are merged into the larger novads. Roughly two thirds
feared that the prospects for solving local problems would decrease. 20 to 50 % feared that
existing municipal centers would decline, small schools would close and job losses would occur.
Few saw the benefits of amalgamation—particularly in public services. Less than 20 % expected
improvements in education, social and health care, and public utilities.
To assist the amalgamation the Law on Administrative Territorial Reform requires the
Government to provide a one-time payment to municipalities that undertake amalgamation. The
amount of the subsidy depends on when the amalgamation occurs. Municipalities amalgamating
before 2001 received a grant equal to 5 % of their budgets. This percentage fell to 4 % for 2001
and 2002. In 2003 and 2004 it was already 3%. Judging from the small rate of this indicator, one
can say that this incentive has not been particularly effective. The Government is planning to
address the specific concerns of smaller municipalities through a program of public works. This
17
would include rural road improvements and investments in telecommunications and internet
access.
Table 4. Public Opinion on Consolidattion
Negative
Prospects for solving local problems will decrease
Small schools in rural areas will close
Cities/towns will force their policies on countryside
Existing municipal centers will decline
Job losses will occur
Positive
New jobs will be created
There will be concentration of finances
Improved social and health care
Improved quality of education
Better public utilities
(Survey results)
Percentage
59-70 %
39-64 %
29-44 %
42-64 %
25-46 %
Percentage
13-29 %
21-27 %
9-18 %
7-15 %
6-11 %
Estonia
By 1 January 1999 the number of municipalities in Estonia is 253 (47 urban and 206 rural
municipalities). Almost half of all municipalities have less than 2,000 inhabitants.
The mixed “stick and carrot” model of territorial reform is preferred in Estonia. The Estonian
government announced in spring 1998, that voluntary amalgamation would take place until
autumn 2002. After autumn 2002 state forced amalgamation will take place.
Therefore systematic discussions for implementation of the administrative-territorial reform were
started.
The Government of Estonia approved “Guidelines for Making Proposals to Amend the
Administrative-Territorial Organization of Local Government” on 4 July 2000.
Local Government Department of the Ministry of Interior finished working out the “Strategy of
the Local Government Administrative-Territorial Reform”.
According to these two documents the municipalities should be consolidated based on the
following criteria:
1. In general, the population of a local self-government unit will be more than 3.500.
2. In a rural municipality locating in the vicinity of the city, the minimum number of the
population will be 4.500.
3. Cities and settlements with less than 10.000 inhabitants have to belong to the “rural
municipality” category.
4. Local self – government unit will be formed as a whole unit with one or several closely
interrelated centers.
5. In case the links of different parts of a municipality of any size are tighter with neighbor
municipalities than those between themselves, such parts shall be incorporated to
corresponding neighbor municipalities.
The Government issued the order on “Initiation Reorganizing the Administrative-Territorial
Organization” on 5 June 2001. According to this document 108 municipalities would be instead
of existing 247 municipalities. To take next decisions the Ministry of Interior waited the answers
and suggestions of municipalities concerning amalgamation until the end of October. The
Ministry of Interior has received 225 answers, from which in 30 municipalities the suggestion
18
was accepted, in 117 municipalities it was not, in 70 it was accepted in some conditions and
representatives of 8 municipalities did not express their position. These results reflect negative
attitude of local self-government representatives towards the reform. This means that the
municipalities need confidence in the positive result of the reform and clear process of the
reform. And this process must be prescribed by legal documents. If the politicians are not sure
about the necessity of the reform and they are afraid of unpopular decisions, the reform will not
be implemented.
National Association of Local Authorities in Denmark (NALAD) co-operating with the Danish
Ministry of Interior (MoI), has developed proposal on local government territorial reform in
Estonia, where the steps, division of roles and competences, criteria of reform, etc., are
represented. Below some fragments of the proposal are provided.
Division of Roles and Competences
The Parliament
In NALAD’s opinion, the general “rules of the game” of the reform process should be laid down
in the Law on Local Government Administrative-Territorial Reform. The Law should include
paragraphs addressing:
• The overall model of the local government territorial reform (including overall step-bystep methodology and time frame for each of the steps);
• The division of roles of competences in the territorial reform process, (including the
creation of institutional bodies responsible for managing the process);
• Criteria for formation of new local governments;
• Application and approval procedures for formation of new local governments;
• State support measures of amalgamation of local governments;
• The management of the local government affairs in the transition period before and after
formation of new local governments.
The Government
According to the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Estonia passed on 22 February
1995, approval of proposals for new municipalities is a Government authority.
Local Government Territorial Reform Commission (LGTRC)
It is recommended to create a Local Government Territorial Reform Commission (LGTRC) in
Estonia, as an advisory body with the following 3 functions:
• To discuss, monitor and advice the Government about the overall territorial reform
process;
• To discuss and advice the government on concrete proposals for the basic criteria for
amalgamation, new legislation, financial support measures, etc.;
• To provide general information and generate public debate about the territorial reform to
the local governments. This could e.g. be done through participation in public debates,
publication of information materials, etc.
It is suggested to include representatives from the following institutions in the Reform
Commission:
• The Parliament
• The Ministry of Interior
• The Ministry of Finance
• The Local Government Associations
19
It is recommended not to let professional experts (scientists, consultants, etc.) be permanent
members of the Reform Commission, but instead they can be invited to participate in relevant
sessions of the Reform Commission.
Local Government Territorial Reform Secretariat (LGTRS)
It is recommended to establish a Local Government Territorial Reform Secretariat (LGTRS)
consisting of 3-4 full time experts with the following tasks:
Investigations
1. To elaborate a standard methodology for regional investigations about the possibilities
for local government amalgamations in all regions of Estonia;
2. To carry out and/or monitor regional investigations about the possibilities for local
government amalgamations in all regions of Estonia;
3. To investigate the experiences – good, bad, etc. – of municipalities those have already
amalgamated.
Assistance to the municipalities
4. To elaborate a methodology for amalgamation projects possibly in the form of a practical
“Handbook on Amalgamation” including problems and obstacles, necessary paperwork, legal
aspects, decision making procedures, etc;
5. To elaborate guidelines for amalgamation contracts;
6. To provide advice and support to local governments on amalgamation issues, upon demand;
7. To supervise, support and advice the proposed regional territorial reform commissions in the
facilitation and co-ordination of the voluntary territorial reform process.
Information
8. To provide information to the municipalities, the Government, the Parliament, the press and
public about the territorial reform.
Advice and proposals
9. To provide analysis and advice to the Government, the Minister of Regional Development, the
Parliament and the Local Government Territorial Reform Commission during the reform
process;
10. To check the formalities of the proposals on formation of new local governments and submit
the proposals to the Government;
11. To prepare concrete proposals for new local governments after the period of voluntary
amalgamations.
Management of the proposed “Amalgamation Fund”
12. To manage the proposed “Amalgamation Fund” and to approve/reject applications to the
fund based on the criteria determined by the Parliament.
The Reform Secretariat can be established either as a part of the Ministry of Interior or as an
independent government institution under supervision of the Minister. The Secretariat can be
comprised of staff members of the Ministry of Interior working part time in the mentioned two
institutions.
Regional Territorial Reform Commissions
Previous surveys demonstrate that the municipalities much prefer that the territorial reform
process is initiated and managed by the municipalities themselves rather than by the state. It is
therefore recommended that the Minister of Regional Development take initiative to establish a
regional territorial reform commission in each of the 16 Estonian regions. The commissions
20
should consist of representatives from all municipalities within the region, and the aim of the
commissions should be co-ordination the discussions on voluntary amalgamations among the
municipalities of the region. The Regional Commissions should act independently, but the
LGTRS should to some extent supervise the work on behalf of the Minister of Regional
Development. It is recommended that the Minister of Regional Development appoints the
chairman of each of the Regional Territorial Reform Commissions.
The Legal Chancellery
The experience of the first voluntary amalgamations of municipalities demonstrates that the
Legal Chancellery can interfere and denounce the amalgamation contract illegal even though the
contract has earlier been approved by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In order to avoid legal
problems with the amalgamation contracts at a late stage in the amalgamation process, it is
recommended that the Legal Chancellery is consulted by LGTRS during the elaboration of a set
of simple standard guidelines for amalgamation contracts. The legality of the final guidelines
should also be approved by the Legal Chancellery. It should then be the responsibility of LGTRS
to ensure that each amalgamation contract corresponds to the requirements of the guidelines. In
this case the Legal Chancellery should only provide consultancy if there are cases of inaccuracy.
Criteria
It is recommended that the final list of criteria in Estonia is elaborated on the basis of the
following guidelines:
1. The final set of guidelines should be debated and accepted by the key stakeholders and
laid down in the proposed Law on Local Government Administrative-Territorial Reform;
2. As few criteria as possible. Few criteria can not cover all important aspects fully but few
criteria ensure more simplicity and transparency than many criteria;
3. As unambiguous and objective criteria as possible. Unambiguous and objective criteria
(e.g. minimum 2000 inhabitants) eliminates the need for long discussions later on in the
process about the interpretations of vaguely formulated criteria (e.g. a “sufficient number
of inhabitants”);
4. As objective criteria as possible;
5. Exceptions from the general set of criteria due to special conditions (e.g. of islands)
should at an early stage of the process be approved by the Reform Commission on the
basis of a recommendation provided by the Reform Secretariat.
As a result the following criteria are suggested in Estonia:
1. Number of services to be carried out
2. Uniform territory
3. Large enough to carry out all services
4. More than 2.000 inhabitants
5. Infrastructure and transport
6. Sufficient economic situation and tax base
7. History and cultural unity
8. One town-one municipality
9. Geographical conditions
10. Demographic situation
11. Well defined center of the municipality.
Though, this is only a preliminary list, it should be noted that some of these criteria are
vulnerable and it is difficult to assess some of the criteria objectively.
Creation of an Amalgamation Fund
21
The creation of the Amalgamation Fund should be laid down by law. The Government should
oblige to contribute certain amount from the state budget to this fund every year until the local
government territorial reform is completed. The possibility of additional donor funding should be
investigated.
The LGTRS should be responsible for the management of the fund and will further be delegated
the responsibility to approve or reject the individual applications on the basis of criteria approved
by the Parliament.
Both voluntary and forced amalgamations can be supported throughout the entire period of the
local government territorial reform. Two or more municipalities can apply the Amalgamation
Fund for financial support of the following activities:
1. Regional investigation support;
2. Local investigation support;
3. Election support;
4. Consolidation implementation support;
5. Discharge support - The Amalgamation Fund can support the municipalities with certain
amount per discharged worker, who was not found employment in the new local
government unit within a year after the amalgamation was enacted;
Compensation for reduction in state earmarked transfers - The Amalgamation Fund can
compensate a newly amalgamated municipality the first year after amalgamation, if the state
earmarked transfer to the new municipality is less than the sum of the state earmarked transfers
to each of the amalgamating municipalities the year before amalgamation.
Eight Steps of Voluntary Amalgamation
Step 1: Initial discussions
On the basis of the investigations in all the municipalities within a region groups of local
governments are formed in order to start discussions about possible amalgamations.
Step 2: Formation of a Joint Amalgamation Commission.
The key tasks of the commission should be the following:
To develop, co-ordinate and monitor a step-by-step action plan for the activities during the
amalgamation process;
To gather, analyze and distribute relevant information to the involved municipal councils and the
citizens;
On the basis of investigations and discussions to elaborate a draft amalgamation agreement and
submit this to the municipal councils.
The total number of commission members can vary, but the commission should consist of an
equal number of members from each of the participating municipalities regardless of the size of
the municipalities. The commission should include the top decision-makers from each of the
municipalities i.e. the mayor and the chairman of the municipal council, as well as one-two
additional municipal council members.
Step 3: General investigation
The Joint Amalgamation Commission can decide to carry out the general investigations itself,
but the commission can also seek external assistance from the Local Government Territorial
Reform Secretariat or private consultancy firms. External assistance will especially be useful, if
the partners for some reasons cannot agree on the approach to be taken in the amalgamation
process.
Step 4: Formation of sub-commissions.
22
On the basis of the general investigation the Joint Amalgamation Commission should identify a
number of core areas for detailed investigations and establish corresponding number of subcommissions. The core areas should in principle cover all municipal tasks (education, utilities,
etc.) and identified problems connected with the amalgamation process (the election of the new
mayor, investments and services in the future municipal centre, etc.).
The Joint Amalgamation Commission should elaborate the terms of reference for the subcommissions. The terms of reference should include a description of the objective, the scope of
the work, the activities, the expected outputs, the methodology to be used, the time-frame for the
work, and the financial means available.
Each of the sub-commissions should consist of at least one member from each of the involved
municipalities.
Step 5: Detailed investigations by the sub-commissions
The sub-commissions can gather relevant information through questionnaires or interviews with
users of the municipal services, public hearings, etc.
Independent the data collection method, it is recommended to include all major interest groups
and key persons in the investigations in one way or another.
Step 6: Dialogue with the citizens
Territorial reform is often a rather sensitive issue. If no information is available to the citizens,
the municipalities risk an unqualified discussion among the citizens based on rumours and
random pieces of true or false information. Hence, it is recommended that the Joint
Amalgamation Commission should inform as well as enter into a dialogue with the citizens
about the territorial reform process in order to receive input about the concerns and ideas of the
public.
It will be very useful if the Joint Amalgamation Commission elaborates an information strategy
beforehand and if all the municipalities have the same strategy.
The information media can vary, but it is recommended to use several written, visual and oral
media (e.g. newspapers, posters, radio and public hearings).
Step 7: Amalgamation agreement
Based on the previous steps the Joint Amalgamation Commission should negotiate and submit a
draft amalgamation agreement to the involved municipal councils. The draft amalgamation
agreement should address all legal, organisational, administrative and practical aspects of a
possible amalgamation, and it should include a detailed action plan for the process from the
decision is taken to the amalgamation is fully implemented.
To the extent possible the draft amalgamation agreement should also suggest solutions to the
identified problems of an amalgamation of the involved municipalities. For instance, it should
include the likely necessity of retraining part of the municipal employees in order to enable them
to complete other than their present functions in a new enlarged municipality.
Step 8: Decision on amalgamation
The Law on Administrative-Territorial Division in Estonia stipulates that municipal councils
before deciding to amalgamate have an obligation to "finding out the citizens' opinion"2, but it
does not determine how to do this. Hence, the municipal councils can choose not to organise a
referendum but to ask the citizens in other ways e.g. by public hearings or by using interviews or
2
This is in accordance with the European Charter of Local Self-Government
23
questionnaires, etc. The municipal council may also simply take the decision itself, as the
municipal council is elected by the citizens and therefore represent the opinion of the citizens.
A referendum clearly has the advantage of being a very direct way of practising democracy.
5. The goals and criteria of municipalities consolidation
The number of legislatively formed municipalities in Armenia is very big and as a result of this
the financial, human and material recourses become fragmented. Therefore many municipalities
are unable to implement the responsibilities legislatively assigned to them. The possible
solutions of this problem are:
1. Significant increase of the financial support to municipalities. This is unrealistic in
coming years because of current financial potential of Armenia.
2. Implementation of municipalities' consolidation which will lead to the consolidation of
human, financial and material recourses.
The consolidation will provide minimization of administrative costs and will lead to the entire
realization of local self-government responsibilities in more municipalities.
The goals of municipalities’ consolidation are:
1. Achieving more economy of scale;
2. Provision of basic municipal responsibilities’ implementation and creation of the
necessary base for transferring the additional ones.
In order to reach these goals it should be taken into consideration the following two factors:
based on economic reasons implement as deep consolidation as possible and provide
accessibility for population to local self-government bodies and services that they are provided.
Based on the above mentioned goals the following principles are applied for consolidation:
1. Economic expedience;
2. The accessibility (closeness) of local self-government bodies to population.
The economic expedience implies minimization of municipal staff related expenses as a result of
consolidation. Therefore the amounts directed to service delivery will increase. In addition the
effective using of human and material recourses should be also provided. On the other hand the
consolidation of municipalities is limited by accessibility of services for population. For
instance, if the consolidation is implemented only for achieving more economic expedience, so
the higher minimization of administrative costs will be shown in case of minimal number of
municipalities. Although, in this case population will lose the opportunity to receive qualitative
services due to their distance.
The mutual implication of these two principles will allow finding the best solution of
consolidation.
In the bases of above mentioned principles and international experience, as well as taking into
account peculiarities of Armenia below is proposed the criteria of municipalities` consolidation.
Criteria for Consolidation of Municipalities
Consolidation of municipalities is implemented based on the following criteria:
1. Existence of common administrative boundary of consolidating municipalities;
2. Center of the newly formed municipality should have central position comparing with
consolidating municipalities, at least 1.000 inhabitants and infrastructures;
24
3. Distance of settlements from the center of the newly formed municipality should not
exceed 5 km;
4. There should be minimum infrastructures (kindergarten, primary health care clinic,
culture center/club) necessary for implementation of local self-government bodies`
mandatory responsibilities and school, in the newly formed municipalities;
5. Existence of roads for the organization of public transportation among settlements of the
newly formed municipality
6. Existence of joint governing body in past (rural soviet, settlement soviet, city soviet) of
settlements of the newly formed municipality;
7. Compatibility and mentality of inhabitants of the newly formed municipality’s
settlements.
25
6. Annexes
Annex 1
Criteria of Assessment of Local Self-Government Units’ Viability in Different Countries
Estonia
Number of services to be carried out
Uniform territory
Large enough to carry out all services
More than 2.000 inhabitants
Infrastructure and transport
Sufficient economic situation and tax
base
History and cultural unity
One town-one municipality
Geographical conditions
Demographic situation
Well defined center of the
municipality
Denmark
One town-one municipality
Municipalities will be economically
sustainable
Municipalities will have a sufficient
size to be able to provide the basic
municipal services in a rational way
and with good quality (it is meant
minimum 4.000-6.000 inhabitants in
municipalities and 200.000
inhabitants in counties)
To the extent possible municipalities
will have industrial and commercial
basis for future development
To the extent possible municipalities
will have a clear geographical
territory with a natural center
To the extent possible no acting
municipalities will be split during
formation of new municipalities
Latvia
Long-term development of local selfgovernment unit
Revenue basis
Existence of infrastructure necessary
for provision of services
Number of inhabitants
Economic, geographic and historical
unity of local self-government units
Access to local services
Other conditions proposed by
regional council
26
Southe Africa
Democratic and accountable
government
Equitable provision of services to the
communities
Promotion of social and economic
development
Promotion of healthy environment
Ability to undertake integrated
development
Sufficient tax base
Annex 2
Municipalities’ Consolidation Criteria in Estonia and Latvia
Latvia
The minimum number of population shall be
5.000 inhabitants
There shall be a developed center with at least
2.000 inhabitants
Distance of the settlement from the
municipality center shall be no more than 30
km
Road access connecting all parts of the
municipality to the center
Estonia
In general, the population of a local selfgovernment unit will be more than 3.500
In a rural municipality locating in the vicinity
of the city, the minimum number of the
population will be 4.500
Cities and settlements with less than 10.000
inhabitants have to belong to the “rural
municipality” category
Local self – government unit will be formed
as a whole unit with one or several closely
interrelated centers
In case the links of different parts of a
municipality of any size are tighter with
neighbor municipalities than those between
themselves, such parts shall be incorporated
to corresponding neighbor municipalities
Annex 3
Change in Number of Municipalities in Different Countries
Country
Lithuania
Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
Great Britain
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Norway
Finland
Spain
Latvia
France
Switzerland
Poland
Japan
South Africa
Jordan
Canada (Ontario)
Australia (Victoria)
Greece
USA
Number of
municipalities before
consolidation
1990
581
1950
2 281
1950
1 387
1950
2 669
1950
2 028
1950
25 930
1950
1 015
1950
3 999
1950
744
1950
547
1950
9 214
1990
570
1945
38 814
1950
3 097
1972
8000
1998
3232
1997
843
2000
328
1995
815
1992
210
1996
5825
1951
67355
27
Number of
municipalities after
consolidation
1996
56
1992
289
1992
275
1991
589
1999
467
1994
14 808
1998
572
1992
2 301
1992
439
1993
455
1992
8 082
2001
552
1990
36 763
2001
2 880
1975
2500
2006
1821
1998
299
2001
99
2004
445
1995
78
1999
1033
1982
14851
Change
-90%
-87%
-80%
-78%
-77%
-51%
-44%
-42%
-41%
-17%
-12%
-3%
-5%
-7%
-69%
-44%
-65%
-70%
-45%
-63%
-82%
-78%
Information Sources
1. The Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Armenia
2. Poverty Reduction Strategic Program of Armenia (PRSP 1)
3. Draft of the reviewed variant of the Poverty Reduction Strategic Plan (PRSP 2)20072021
4. Government Plan of the Republic of Armenia (2007-2012)
5. www.cfoa.am
6. www.logincee.org
7. Local Government Territorial Reform in Estonia – Roles, Criteria, Procedures and
Support Measures. National Association of Local Authorities in Denmark, the
International Consultancy Division. 1999
8. Latvia Beyond Territorial Reform. World Bank, Report No. 25466-LV. 2003
9. Local Government Reform in the Baltic Countries. Edvins Vanags, Inga Vilka.
10. International Experiences in Territorial Reform – Implications for Indonesia. Gabriele
Ferrazzi. 2007.
28