Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NALAS Regional Decentralisation Observatory Index for South-East Europe
Eastern Partnership Coordination Seminar: Ukraine
“A new political framework for Ukrainian local and regional governments”
5-6 September, Kyiv (Ukraine)
Kyiv City Hall
• Monitoring tool - comprehensive measuring and comparing the degree of decentralization and the quality of local governance among the NALAS participating countries, necessary for bench-learning rather than for benchmarkig among the countries and local governments of SEE.
• Development of evidence based policies at national and regional level
Developed and implemented by NALAS member associations of local authorities, across 12 countries of SEE region
Regional Decentralisation Observatory
D1 Autonomy of Local Governments
(w. 34,27)
D11 Legal Setup
D12 Policy and Administrative
Autonomy of Local Governments
D13 Fiscal and Financial Autonomy
of Local Governments
D2 Quality of Local Services
(w. 28,48)
D21 Communal Services
D22 Local Economic Development
D23 Social Affairs (Education, Culture,
Health, Social Welfare)
D24 Resilience
D25 Smart Cities
D3 Citizen Participation and LG Responsiveness
(w. 19,49)
D31 Participation
D32 Responsiveness
D33 Transparency
D34 Accountability
D4 LGAs Involvement in the Policy Dialogue
(w. 17,75)
D41 LGA positioning for dialogue
D42 LGA consultation with
members
D43 Inter-governmental Consultation
Practices
D44 Impact of LGAs proposals
D45 LGA involvement in
policy dialogue at international level
• 4 dimensions• 17 indices • 9 sub-indices• 97 indicators:
32 quantitative65 qualitative
Structure of the RDO Index
21 indicators
45 indicators
13 indicators
20 indicators
0
2
4
6
8
10D1 AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
D11 Legal Setup
D12 Policy and Administrative Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D13 Fiscal and Financial Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D2 QUALITY OF LOCAL SERVICES
D21 Communal Services
D22 Local Economic Development
D23 Social Affairs (education, culture, health, socialwelfare)
D24 Resilience
D25 Smart Cities
D3 PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSIVENESSD31 Participation
D32 Responsiveness
D33 Transparency
D34 Accountability
D4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS’ INVOLVEMENT IN POLICY DIALOGUE
D41 LGA positioning for dialogue
D42 LGA consultation with members
D43 Inter-governmental Consultation Practices
D44 Impact of LGA proposals
D45 LGA involvement in policy dialogue atinternational level
Chart Title
0
2
4
6
8
10D1 AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
D11 Legal Setup
D12 Policy and Administrative Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D13 Fiscal and Financial Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D2 QUALITY OF LOCAL SERVICES
D21 Communal Services
D22 Local Economic Development
D23 Social Affairs (education, culture, health, socialwelfare)
D24 Resilience
D25 Smart Cities
D3 PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSIVENESSD31 Participation
D32 Responsiveness
D33 Transparency
D34 Accountability
D4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS’ INVOLVEMENT IN POLICY DIALOGUE
D41 LGA positioning for dialogue
D42 LGA consultation with members
D43 Inter-governmental Consultation Practices
D44 Impact of LGA proposals
D45 LGA involvement in policy dialogue atinternational level
Chart Title
7,49 8,55
8,13
6,43
5,49
5,26
6,32
5,63
5,87
4,825,595,446,25
6,20
4,47
7,40
8,27
7,83
7,83
6,48
6,65
D1 AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
D11 Legal Setup
D12 Policy and Administrative Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D13 Fiscal and Financial Autonomy of LocalGovernments
D2 QUALITY OF LOCAL SERVICES
D21 Communal Services
D22 Local Economic Development
D23 Social Affairs (education, culture, health,social welfare)
D24 Resilience
D25 Smart Cities
D3 PARTICIPATION AND RESPONSIVENESSD31 Participation
D32 Responsiveness
D33 Transparency
D34 Accountability
D4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONS’ INVOLVEMENT IN POLICY DIALOGUE
D41 LGA positioning for dialogue
D42 LGA consultation with members
D43 Inter-governmental Consultation Practices
D44 Impact of LGA proposals
D45 LGA involvement in policy dialogue atinternational level
6,53
The Overall RDO Index* across RDO Dimensions and Indices
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
D1 AUTONOMY OFLOCAL GOVERNMENTS
D2 QUALITY OF LOCALSERVICES
D3 PARTICIPATION ANDRESPONSIVENESS
D4 LGAs' INVOLVEMENTIN POLICY DIALOGUE
The Overall RDO Index* across Dimensions
7,49
5,44
5,59
7,4 1
10
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
6,53
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
5,49
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
• Mostly applied in capital cities and towns
• introduced and accepted on a very elementary level.
• civil servants are appointed to manage the portfolio, but there is no real commitment to the subject.
• insufficient financial resources are allocated to support the transition towards a smart city
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
EE• around 30% of the LGs in
SEE develop SEAP
• Less than 10% of LGs are signatories of Covenant of Mayors
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
SWM• waste collection service
coverage is around 80%
• poor performance in recycling and reuse of the materials from the household waste, (< 20%, except Slovenia ~ 50%)
• 70 – 80% of the household waste is mainly disposed on noncompliant landfills
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
Public transportation and local roads• Moderate quality of local
public transportation services and maintenance of the existing road network.
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
WSS• ~ 90% of population is
covered with water supply services
• lack of asset management practices
• non-revenue water rate and water loses in average are around 50%.
• 70% of the population in the region is covered with sewerage services
• 40% of the population in the region is connected to a wastewater treatment plant
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
Regionalization of services Need for capital infrastructure investments (WSS, SWM and EE)
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
5,7
Lack of mechanisms for the citizens to monitor and evaluate the work/performance of the LG -Community based Monitoring and Evaluation
Right or mandate of citizens to monitor is acknowledged and recognized by the legal framework, but not adequately promoted and applied
Accountability
Participation
The involvement of local community in bringing local policies into practice is at the level of CONSULTATION(not at dialog and partnership)
Participatory budgeting is applied to some extent –not in a systematic manner and with involvement of SH in the later stage of the process with not adequate inclusion of marginalized groups.
5,7
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
• Good conditions, insufficient fiscal resources?
* Preliminary findings from the testing of the RDO Methodology
Fiscal Decentralization Indicators (baseline 2006)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
NALAS Fiscal Decentralization Indicators for SEE
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Revenues
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Composition of Local Revenue in SEE 2006 & 2017
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Revenues
Local governments in SEE in practice can freely decide on half their budgets, while the other half is preconditioned by the central levelvia the conditionality of the transfers.
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Local governments powers to set and collect taxes, fees and charges are reduced
Composition of Local Expenditure in SEE in 2006 & 2017
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Expenditures
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Investments
3,9 % 4,3 %
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Investments
SEE in general is heavily centralized in terms of public investment spending
In SEE countries the state is the ultimate investor in infrastructure
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Fiscal decentralization indicator – Local Government Borrowing
1,8 %
Findings from the NALAS Report on Fiscal Decentralization Indicators in SEE 2018 -http://nalas.eu/Publications/Books/FDReport_18
Tendency of decreasing the level of the fiscal autonomy of local governments:• Decreased local revenues • Decreased expenditures for local investments and services• Increasing dependence on CG grants• Lack of enabling environment for using borrowing as instrument for capital infrastructure investments
Thank you for your attention!
Boran Ivanoski
NALAS Programme Officer
www.nalas.eu