1. Inter-municipal cooperation
International best-practices
Ariana Fürst, 5 June 2012
06.12.12 Seite 1

2. Inter-municipal cooperation
 In the last decades municipalities worldwide
experienced the necessity to cooperate (Klemme 2002)
 Forms of cooperation vary, depending on:
 Country´s legislation and experiences
 Legal form of cooperation
 Service area
 Number of municipalities involved
06.12.12 Seite 2 2
Seite

3. 1) Commercial company: Berat and Kuçova water
and sewerage utility, Albania
Situation:
 2000 Law on functioning and organisation of local
government: water supply and wastewater collection
and treatment were legally handed over to the local
government units
 Municipalities of Kuçova and Berat lacked a
continuous drinking water supply and inherited an
inefficient distribution system for water and sewerage
 IMC addressed the need to increase service quality
and efficiency
06.12.12 Seite 3 3
Seite

4. 1) Commercial company: Berat and Kuçova water
and sewerage utility, Albania
Solution:
 Merging two separate water supply and wastewaster
utilities beforehand belonging to two municipalities
 Actors: the mayors of Berat and Kuçova municipalities,
supported by the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and
Telecommunication and the German Bank for
Development (KfW)
 Memorandum of Cooperation: establishment of joint
structure (joining of financial tools; to advance
investments)
 The company has its own shareholders assembly and
supervisory council
06.12.12 Seite 4 4
Seite

5. 1) Commercial company: Berat and Kucova water
and sewerage utility, Albania
Technical and financial information:
 Provision for 146,000 inhabitants
 Organisation of company: two sectors (Berat and
Kuçova); central office in Berat
 Total number of employees: 271
 A total investment of 6.6 Mio. Euro (purification and
drainage system)
 This initiative was supported and encouraged by KfW:
joining of enterprises as a condition to obtain the loan
 Upgrading the system to a standard that saves 30
litres/second of water
06.12.12 Seite 5 5
Seite

6. 1) Commercial company: Berat and Kucova water
and sewerage utility, Albania
Factors of success:
 The cooperation climate between Municipalities of
Berat and Kuçova has been good  supported
the IMC practice
 Expertise from specialists helped this process since its
start up
 Support from respective Municipal councils of both
cities which approved this joint cooperation
 The support from the Central Government’s legal
bodies
 Financial incentives
06.12.12 Seite 6 6
Seite

7. Source: http://www.municipal-cooperation.org
06.12.12 Seite 7 7
Seite

8. 2) Concession: Elin Pelin and Gorna Malina
regional landfill, Bulgaria
Situation:
 Each of the municipalities had to take care of the
waste disposal on its territory  higher service costs
for the citizens. This landfills did not correspond to
European standards
Solution:
 Modest financial possibilities of municipalities 
decision to cooperate
 Public procurement procedure to hire a private
company for the waste management
06.12.12 Seite 8 8
Seite

9. 2) Concession: Elin Pelin and Gorna Malina
regional landfill, Bulgaria
 Each of the municipalities signed separate
concession contracts with the winner of the
procurement procedure
 The entire process was supervised by the
Ministry of Environment and Water, including
the feasibility analysis, the public procurement
procedure and the building of the landfill
06.12.12 Seite 9 9
Seite

10. 2) Concession: Elin Pelin and Gorna Malina
regional landfill, Bulgaria
Technical and financial information:
 Total area of the landfill: 48,085.9 m 2
 Daily capacity of disposed waste: 40–50 tons
 Number of the served population: 30,000
 The life of the landfill: 23 years
 The building of the new landfill (EUR 1.2 Mio.) was
financially supported by:
 state budget and funds (63%)
 Enterprise for Management of Environmental Protection
Activities (EMEPA) administered under the Ministry of
Environment and Waters (30%)
 financial contribution of the two municipalities (7%)
06.12.12 Seite 1010
Seite

11. 2) Concession: Elin Pelin and Gorna Malina
regional landfill, Bulgaria
 In every municipality there is a Deputy Mayor and an
environmental expert
 The municipal inspectors control the quality of service
provided (M&E). A regional branch of MEW also
controls the running of the landfill
 Their monthly reports are the basis for monthly
payments to the private company operating the waste
management
 The price of waste disposal per tonne is the same for
both municipalities (financed through the waste
management fees)
06.12.12 Seite 1111
Seite

12. Source: http://www.municipal-cooperation.org
06.12.12 Seite 1212
Seite

13. 3) Zweckverband: GWAZ in Guben, Germany
 Zweckverband = association for cooperation
Situation:
 During GDR: service provision was responsability of
the districts
 1991: Retransfer to municipalities  establishment of
associations (political reasons instead of water
management criteria)
 Oversized planning and construction (not taking into
account demographic change and economical
restructuring)
 In 90s big credits from banks, which could not be
amortised  1997 bankrupt
06.12.12 Seite 1313
Seite

14. 3) Zweckverband: GWAZ in Guben, Germany
Solution:
 Rehabilitation and restructuring measures
 Joining of other municipalities  higher utilised
capacity  higher efficiency
 1998: construction of sewage treatment plant together
with neighbouring municipality Gubin in Poland
(INTERREG fund)
 Outsourcing (private-public)
 Decentralised structures and services (small
wastewater systems; modular systems)
06.12.12 Seite 1414
Seite

15. 3) Zweckverband: GWAZ in Guben, Germany
 Nowadays: cash-flow positive, but still some
financial shortages for modernisation measures
 Advantage: financial support of government in
the restructuring phase!
06.12.12 Seite 1515
Seite

16. 06.12.12 Seite 1616
Seite

17. 4) „Bad“-practice: Obiliq in Kosovo
 Road construction together with Vushtrri: only
Vushtrri gets funds from Ministry of Transport and
Telecommunications  produces jealously and
problems
 SWM is outsourced to regional company which
incorporates 4 municipalities
 Problem: company does not pay fee for using waste
depository located in Obiliq
 Reason: low percentage of payment for the services
in all four municipalities
 lack of a formal agreement between municipalities
06.12.12 Seite 1717
Seite

18. Factors for success
 Encourage culture of cooperation (get-together of
mayors/administrative staff; information campaigns) 
mutual interests and benefits
 Legislative framework has to be precise enough and
to encourage initiatives of cooperation, especially in
the beginning
 Central state bodies: react to requests for cooperation
and support local governments in administrative and
expert ways
 Capacity development in IMC, legal and technical
assistance
 Financial incentives encourages IMC
06.12.12 Seite 1818
Seite

19. IMC in Moldova
 To learn from made mistakes and bad experiences
in other countries
 To avoid duplicating those mistakes
 To use know-how and experiences from best-
practices
solid know-how on IMC and on this basis elaborate
structured procedure to establish IMC in Moldova
gain access to a range of funding
06.12.12 Seite 1919
Seite

20. Thank you for your attention!
06.12.12 Seite 2020
Seite