80 likes | 194 Views
Local self-governance in development (Kyrgyzstan’s experience). Population: 5.2 million Territory :19 8 ,900 km² Current GDP : US$ 3,8 billion GDP Per Capita:US$ 720 Inflation Rate: 20 % Unemployment rate (official):3. 0 % (general): 8,3% Poverty level: 39.9%. Achievements:.
E N D
Local self-governance in development (Kyrgyzstan’s experience)
Population: 5.2 million Territory:198,900 km² Current GDP:US$ 3,8 billion GDP Per Capita:US$ 720 InflationRate: 20% Unemployment rate (official):3.0% (general): 8,3% Poverty level: 39.9%
Achievements: • Local self-governance is recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (Chapter #8 of the Constitution of KR in edition of 2007) • All settlements (1880) and cities (25) were aligned to local self-governance principles • Local self-governance is realized in the forms of representative and direct participation of people in local self-government. Forms of representative participation in local self-governance: - local keneshes/councils
Forms of direct democracy, used in LSG system: - through participation in elections of local councilors - through holding kurultays, meetings, people’s law making initiative and appeals of citizens to LSG bodies in compliance with the legislation • National Strategy “Decentralization of State Government and Development of Local Self-governance till 2010” developed and approved in December 2002. Action Plans for 2002 – 2005, 2006 – 2007, 2008 – 2010 were developed and implemented. • Legal base for local self-governance has been established. Six basic laws are: “On Local Self-governance and Local State Administration”(2002-8), “On Municipal Property Ownership”(2002), “On Financial and Economic Bases of LSG”(2003), “On Municipal Service”(2004), “On CBOs and their Associations”(2005), “On Principles of the Budget Right”(1998)
Functional 24,000 community based organizations like jamaats, micro project groups, self-help groups, territorial and rural investment associations, various cooperative societies and unions, as well as incorporations and associations are active actors in local social and economic development • The economic basis of LSG consists of immovable and movable communal property (9,300 asset units with total value amounting to eight billion soms (230 million USD); monetary funds and securities of local self-governments, natural resources located in the particular area, other objects of civil rights, and also enterprises, organizations and establishments engaged in the activity on the relevant territory • Annual budgets of rural municipalities ranges between 0,5 and 50 million soms. • Introduction of pilot E-municipalities
Challenges: • Delayed administrative-territorial rearrangement of the Kyrgyz Republic • Low professional level of municipal servants, local councilors and absence of proper project and human resources’ management, municipal job is unattractive for local champions. • Imperfection of the legal framework • Transition from two level budget to three level one in the country. New Tax Code leaves only two kinds of local taxes for LSG • Ineffective partnership and interaction between state government structures, LSG, civil society and private sector • Additional authorities are delegated to LSG without adequate financial or administrative support
The UNDP Democratic Governance Programme activities: • Legislation/policy making support • Strengthening capacities of local self-governments • Support to the Government of KR in promotion of fiscal decentralization in the country • Strengthening local accountability frameworks • Assistance in improving quality of the state and municipal services through citizens’ feedback mechanism
Lessons learned: • Policy formulation capacities of civil servants should be developed versus direct policy formulation interventions • Capacity building should be done on demand driven basis in compliance with reforms (law financing capacity of LSG made MinFin to re-introduce third budget level). There is lack of coordination in capacity building activities. • Administrative decentralization was not synchronized with the fiscal decentralization. • Decentralization did not go below local self-governments level. Civil society and local private sector should be involved into policy and decision making and service delivery processes. • Local development plans are not based on local revenues.