Tools to Promote Institutional Capacity and Performance

1. 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)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Policy Rating • Comprehensive assessment • Twenty individual criteria • Based on expert judgement • Self-assessment by countries Averages for each dimension are presented NOTA BENE: The rating was designed to monitor progress with EECCA Environmental Partnerships Strategy

9. 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

10. Example of Scoring

11. 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 self-monitoring, 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

12. 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

13. 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”

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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)

21. 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