Suchergebnisse

Lithuania: The environment, an issue revealing the city-country divide
After identifying legacies from the Soviet period that affect the current state of the environment, attention is turned to ecological problems in urban and rural areas. Institutional changes after 1990 and the socioeco- nomic aspects of environmental questions then come under analysis. The cleavage between urban and rural areas, which already existed under the USSR, has persisted. Lithuania's joining the EU will necessarily have an impact, at present and in the future, on the environment. This impact is evaluated despite the difficulty of assessing events still too near to us.

Le retour à l'indépendance de la Lituanie et la transition économique plan-marché a mis en cause le modèle collectiviste apporté par l'occupant soviétique après la Seconde guerre mondiale. En 1991, les anciens propriétaires, victimes de l'ancien régime, ou leurs descendants ont été autorisés à retrouver leurs titres de propriété foncière. En même temps, la loi de privatisation des entreprises agricoles a mis un terme à l'appropriation collective des moyens de production agricole. De ce fait, les kolkhoz et les sovkhoz vont être transformés sur le modèle de l'association des propriétaires dans laquelle chaque membre a sa part. Ce changement des rapports de propriété a révélé l'apparition de nouvelles formes de production : l'exploitation familiale et l'exploitation en coopération. Mais certains héritages du modèle collectiviste demeurent présents et constituent autant d'obstacles à l'intégration des structures agricoles entrepreneu- riales au nouvel environnement socio-économique.

Pour comprendre la problématique du développement local en Lituanie, il faut prendre en compte le poids des héritages sociaux, économiques et spatiaux dans le fonctionnement des territoires. Après l'implosion de l'Union soviétique, le vide institutionnel, laissé par la disparition de la grande exploitation collective, n'a pas été comblé par la reconnaissance de l'autonomie de collectivités locales comme cela a été le cas dans d'autres pays d'Europe centrale. Dès le milieu des années 1990, un mouvement original d'auto-organisation des citoyens a émergé sous la forme de « communautés rurales ». Ces dernières, renouant avec un maillage villageois pré-soviétique, signent le retour d'un maillage concret et opérationnel. Si, pendant la première décennie de leur existence, leurs activités principales étaient orientées vers un renforcement des liens sociaux entre les habitants des communautés locales, depuis l'introduction du programme LEADER, source principale du financement du développement local en Lituanie, elles tendent à affirmer leur présence à travers des stratégies de développement et des projets plus concrets. Le nouveau mode d'action locale est décrit à partir de l'analyse de quelques projets issus de l'initiative des communautés rurales participant au Groupement d'Action Locale (GAL) du district de Joniškis (au nord de la Lituanie).

The main aim of the article is to reveal problem of decentralization of autonomy for local authorities & territorial administration in Lithuania. The reform of administrative division & autonomy for local authorities of the country runs slowly & complicated. Though society, scientists, various branches of government has a lot of various propositions & discussions have been taking place for more than 15 years, the important decisions cannot be made because of the lack of political willpower. One could be under impression that the reform will never be completed. The main reasons of such a disturbances are related to the absence of authentic traditions of autonomy for local authorities as well as to constant changes of centralized models of territorial administration. The unfinished re-form not only disturbs even development of the country but also complicates development of autonomy for local authorities system, which is one of the most important institutions of modern democracy. This also disturbs formation of regional self-consciousness, identity at regional & local level. Finally, it complicates the development of modern civil society in Lithuania. The history of Lithuania shows that even during 20th century models of territorial administration of the country have been changed several times, though centralized government prevailed & autonomy for local authorities was very limited. This prevented formation of territorial autonomy for local authorities & community traditions, solidarity among population was decreasing while indifference to the social needs was increasing. The Soviet period demolished the first appearances of territorial (regional) identity. This consequently caused the lack of willpower to implement new reform of territorial administration. The same as during the years of independence before World War II there is still uncertainty whether centralized or vast autonomy for local authorities should be chosen as a priority. Lithuanian government has always paid the main attention to the reform of regional governing system but autonomy for local authorities is almost totally forgotten. The absence of local & regional autonomy for local authorities makes Lithuania a unique rather unitary state, with a transformed soviet administrative division. Because of these reasons the problem of reformation & decentralization of territorial administration of Lithuania remains topical. Adapted from the source document.

Since its restored political independence, Lithuania has launched a set of reforms for changing the country's political, socioeconomic, institutional and territorial models. Reforms have not advanced at the same pace in all fields however. In particular, institutional and territorial reforms are lagging far behind. A lack of experience with autonomy for local authorities is linked to Lithuania's geopolitical position between central Europe (particulary Poland) and Russia, which used to impose their own institutions and division into territorial units. The slow pace of reforms since 1989 has an impact on regional development, especially in rural areas, and on socioeconomic differences between regions. Regional and local development is blocked owing to insufficient decentralization and an inadequate managerial autonomy for local authorities. Institutions at the regional and local levels are also wanting. Despite the change of system, new arrangements are implemented within territorial units inherited from the Soviet era. The institutional and territorial model conveyed by democratization and decentralization has not yet been put into practice.