Transcript Templates - Regional Environmental Center

Tools to Promote
Institutional
Capacity and
Performance
OECD/EAP Task Force Work
to Support Reform of
Environmental Authorities in
Eastern Europe, Caucasus
and Central Asia (EECCA)
Presentation
Objective and Outline
Objective
– Share experience on benchmarking that was gained by the
OECD/EAP Task Force Secretariat in the EECCA region
– Present OECD tools developed specifically for SEE
Outline
– Definition and challenges of measuring and improving
institutional performance
– Examples of tools used in EECCA
– Tools used by OECD’s Investment Compact in SEE
– Work done by OECD’s SIGMA
Aiming at Institutional
Capacity and Performance
Environmental authorities need to move from
opportunistic evolution to strategic development
with clear and reachable targets, beyond a single
government life time
The notion of “institution” is often associated with
structures and organisation charts, while improved
performance requires, first of all, reform of working
methods and strategies
Systemic Aspects of
Environmental Management
Position in the government hierarchy
Tasks and their balance, authority to take decisions
Performance targets and planning processes
Instruments and strategies
Information management and policy analysis capacity
Degree of cross-sector integration
Degree of decentralisation
Relationships with non-governmental stakeholders
Procedures
Human resources management
Financing and facilities
Transparency, accountability, integrity
The Challenge of Assessing and
Comparing Complex Systems
A whole toolbox is required
– Qualitative measures (minimum criteria)
– Quantitative measures (indicators)
– Integrated measures (e.g. ratings)
Internationally-agreed benchmarks (reference models)
could be used
Difficult to make quantitative cross-country
comparisons if conditions differ
Easier to monitor country-specific trends over time
Subjectivism of qualitative assessments (stakeholder
views may differ)
Problems of interpretation
OECD/EAP Task Force Toolbox
Policy dialogue for institutional strengthening
Policy design and implementation rating
Some of the reference models
– St. Petersburg Guidelines on Environmental Funds in the
Transition to a Market Economy (1995) and Good Practices
of Public Environmental Expenditure Management (PEEM)
– Guiding Principles for Reform of Environmental
Enforcement Authorities
– Guiding Principles for Effective Environmental Permitting
International country-specific (peer) reviews
– Environmental enforcement authorities
– Environmental funds
Regional reviews
Sets of specific indicators
Policy Dialogue in Georgia
Conducted at the request of Georgian authorities in
conjunction with public administration reform
Critical areas identified during the Scoping Meeting
conducted on 12 Sep. 2005 in Paris:
– Financial and human resources management in the context
of the introduction of a medium term expenditure framework
and a plan for stabilising government staff.
– Communication with stakeholders in order to raise the
public profile of environmental issues
– Information management to support decision-making.
Policy Dialogue Retreat (28 October 2005)
Follow-up
Policy Rating
Comprehensive
assessment
Self-rating on environmental legislation, policies and
institutions
15
Planning and Regulation
Policy Instruments
Institutions
12
Twenty individual
criteria
9
6
Based on expert
judgement
3
0
03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06 03 06
Self-assessment by
countries
ARM
AZR
BEL
GEO
KAZ
KYR
MOL
RUS
TAJ
TKM
UKR
Averages for each dimension are presented
NOTA BENE: The rating was designed to monitor progress
with EECCA Environmental Partnerships Strategy
UZB
Assessment Criteria
Twenty individual criteria are grouped to reflect the
three main elements of Objective 1:
– Policy development and legislative framework (3 criteria);
– Instruments and relevant implementing regulations (11
criteria); and
– Institutional framework (6 criteria).
Each individual criterion can be attributed a rating
on a scale of 0 to 5 points
Each composite criterion is an arithmetical average
of ratings (on the scale of 0 to 5) for individual
criteria under a given category
Example of Scoring
Environmental
quality standards
5. Realistic EQSs promulgated and applied
4. Technical work to put realistic EQSs into
place completed
3. Technical work (e.g., projects) underway to
revise EQSs
2. Political decision made to establish
ambitious and economically feasible EQSs
1. Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs)
exist, but they are unrealistic or are not
enforced
Lessons Learned
from the Policy Rating
Used in 2004 to establish a baseline situation
In 2006, the methodology was refined and questionnaires sent
to EECCA countries for self-rating
Results of self-rating
– most progress has been achieved on the legal framework,
inspection and human resource management, as well as
environmental quality standards (EQS)
– least progress has been achieved on Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), natural resource taxes, permitting and selfmonitoring, budget and funding, and information flows.
For some dimensions, comparison of scores across countries
reveals major discrepancies suggesting that what constitutes
best practice is not yet fully understood in all countries
Peer reviews of EEAs:
Objectives and Drivers of Change
Objectives
– Examine current instruments, strategies and institutions in
light of good international practice
– Exercise international peer pressure and generate support
to strengthen compliance assurance systems in reviewed
countries
Drivers
– A mix of formal recommendations and informal dialogue by
the peer countries
– Public scrutiny, comparisons, and, in some cases, even
ranking among countries
– The impact of all the above on public opinion, national
administrations and policy makers
Peer Review Scheme
Involves a systematic examination and assessment
of the performance of a state by other states
The peer review mechanism is free of any threat of
non-compliance sanctions arising from the findings
of the review: its impact relies on the influence and
persuasion exercised by peers (equal partners in the
review process)
Performance is assessed against the
recommendations of the “Guiding Principles for
Reform of Environmental Enforcement Authorities in
Transition Economies of EECCA”
Phases of the Review
Expression of interest by the Ministry of
Environment
Preparatory work, including self-assessment
Visit of the review team to the country
Development of conclusions and recommendations
Discussion and approval at the REPIN Network
meeting
Dissemination at the national level
Involved Parties
and the Review Mission
Involved parties
– Ministry of Environment – self-assessment
– Other national stakeholders (NGOs, other
government agencies, industry)
– Network members and the Secretariat
– Independent international experts
Elements of the mission
– Meetings with the political leaders of the Ministry,
Ministry staff, other government authorities
– Interviews with NGOs and the regulated community
– Draft report on conclusions
– Press-conference
– Donor workshop
Key Lessons Learned
from Peer Reviews
Useful tool to establish a baseline and catalyse
reforms
Impact is higher if high-level support exists, e.g. as
in Armenia
Requires careful preparation
Experts need to understand the country context
Stakeholder participation is extremely important to
promote reforms
Regional Surveys:
How are they done?
Questionnaire developed by the Secretariat
Responses from Ministries (Inspectorates)
Synthesis by a team of experts and the
Secretariat
Recommendations taking account of guidance
available from individual OECD countries/INECE
(first review of 1999) and the Guiding Principles
(2003)
Three rounds (1999, 2003 and 2007)
Increasing Reliance on
Quantitative Information
Within regional reviews, quantitative information is
needed to illustrate the key messages
Example
– Key messages: In some countries, important budget
resources has been invested into attracting more qualified
staff, in particular lawyers. This resulted in a better
development of court cases.
– Quantitative information: Trends in salary levels, number of
lawyers in environmental inspectorates, number of cases
that were lost due to a poor quality of supporting materials.
OECD Investment Compact
The South East Europe Compact for Reform,
Investment, Integrity and Growth (the Investment
Compact) is a key component of the Stability Pact
for Southeast Europe and supports SEE with
practical tools to increase investment, growth and
employment
The programme focuses on four areas
Monitoring and Assessment Tools
– Investment Reform Index
– SME Policy Index
See www.investmentcompact.org
OECD Sigma
Sigma Programme provides support to partner
countries in their efforts to modernise public
governance systems
In 2007 Sigma is working with two new EU Member
States - Bulgaria and Romania - and three EU
candidate countries - Croatia, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey - assisting
decision-makers and administrations in their
preparations for entry into the EU against baselines
set by good European practice and existing EU
legislation (acquis communautaire)
Sigma Assessment Reports
Contribution to the Commission reporting and TA
programming
Conducted against sectoral baselines
Cover six sectors: civil service and administrative
legal framework, policy capacities, public
expenditure management, public procurement,
public internal financial control, external audit
For candidate countries, assessments are
undertaken annually
Assessments of the Western Balkans are not as
regular
See www.sigmaweb.org