1 / 26

Experience of Moldova in implementing structural reforms Eugen Osmochescu Head, RIA Secretariat

Experience of Moldova in implementing structural reforms Eugen Osmochescu Head, RIA Secretariat Geneva, 23 October 2007. Content. Priorities Approach Strategy Legal Framework Institutional Framework Phases of Implementation Results after 3 Phases Enacting the Guillotine

mulan
Télécharger la présentation

Experience of Moldova in implementing structural reforms Eugen Osmochescu Head, RIA Secretariat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Experience of Moldova in implementing structural reforms Eugen Osmochescu Head, RIA Secretariat Geneva, 23 October 2007

  2. Content • Priorities • Approach • Strategy • Legal Framework • Institutional Framework • Phases of Implementation • Results after 3 Phases • Enacting the Guillotine • Lessons Learned • Next Measures • Lessons Learned

  3. Priorities in Policy and Regulatory Reform Rendering paid services for entrepreneurs Optimization of authorization system at the start-up stage of business Improvement of the activities of controlling/ inspection organizations Regulatory Reform Fiscal & Accounting Reporting through a simplified fiscal system

  4. Strategy in Policy & Regulatory Reform Task/Activities Main tools Implementation of Guillotine Law & RIA National Working Group (NWG) Regional Working Groups (RWGs) Establishment of RWGs, and OSSs Best inter. practice, Training TA to MET, NWG and RWGs Workshops, roundtables, int. forum Development of RIA Module

  5. Legal Framework (I) 17 February 2004 Governmental Decision on Reform of State Regulation of Entrepreneurship Activity • The Concept of Reform has been approved. • Inter-ministerial Commission created as a political body to coordinate the Reform. • The National Working Group (NWG) created as a working entity to propose to the Inter-ministerial Commission modification to the legal framework on regulating entrepreneurship activity.

  6. Legal Framework (II) 16 December 2004 • Law on reviewing and streamlining the normative regulatory framework for business activity (Guillotine Law I) passed by the Parliament of Moldova by a near unanimous vote including the opposition. NBUnder the Guillotine Law did not fall laws and decisions of the Parliament

  7. Institutional Framework • State Commission on Regulatory Reform; • National Working Group on Regulatory Reform (NWG); • Secretariat of the NWG (based on a Memorandum signed between MoE&T and USAID BIZPRO/Moldova, and as of July 3, 2006 overtaken by the WB Competitiveness Enhancement Project); • 9 Regional Working Groups.

  8. Phases of Implementation • Phase I: 7 February -22 March 2005 • Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 • Phase III: 22 June – 22 July 2005

  9. Phase I: 7 February -22 March 2005 • All public authorities revise official acts in respective field of activity. • Based on the revision, each authority elaborates a List of official acts. • The List of official acts and every single official act are presented to the NWG and its Secretariat • Each official act is presented with an informative note

  10. Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 (I) • Assessment by the NWG of official acts and informative notes presented by public authorities; • NWG takes the decision to include or not include the official acts into the Registry; • Appeals by the public authorities at the State Commission.

  11. Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 (II) • 9 sub-groups of the NWG created; • 12 independent expert consultants hired; • 15 sessions scheduled for the NWG.

  12. Phase III: 22 June – 22 July 2005 • Public access to the elaboration of the final version of the Registry; • Elaboration and approval of the final version of the Registry; • Presentation of the draft Registry to the Government; • Abrogation of official acts not included in the Registry.

  13. Results after 3 phases • 1130 regulations have been revised> • 426 regulations shall be included in the Registry; • 285 regulations shall be amended; and • 99 regulations shall be discarded; • Other considered not to regulate entrepreneurial activity.

  14. Enacting Guillotine I (I) • Government Decision – 30 August 2005 Approving the Nomenclature of Authorizations, Permits and Certificates Issued by Central Public Authorities and Subordinated Units for Entrepreneurial Activity of Physical and Legal Persons • Results: • from around 400 permits only 128 remained, of which only 47 are issued against charge (reference to a law or international agreement Moldova is part of); • have to be issued within 10 days (unless otherwise provided by a law or international agreement).

  15. Enacting Guillotine I (II) • Government Decision – 3 October 2005 Approving the Registry of formal acts regulating business activity • Results: • List # 1 – Acts to be included in the Registry; • List # 2 – Abrogated Acts; • List # 3 – Acts proposed to be abrogated by independent agencies; • List # 4 – Acts to be modified and published in the Official Gazette (authorities have to present to the NWG modifications to the respective acts within a 3 months period. In case if it is not done, unmodified acts will be abrogated as of January 1, 2006).

  16. Lessons Learned (I) • Underestimation of potential number of acts to be revised • Inclusion for revision and assessment of local public authorities’ acts. In this case the work load is not real taking into account 6 months and available financial and human recourses • Lack of real communication strategy of the central level with local levels, where most of business in need is and • Low quality involvement in the exercise of private sector representatives from the capital city where 70% of business is, except foreign investors • Lack of financial and human resources from the side of the Government, fact leading to a need of foreign TA

  17. Lessons Learned (II) • Part of the members of the NWG did not took the exercise in serous • Old mind set in case of most ministries. It took a while to “educate” them which led to time loosing and low quality of the interaction between theministries and NWG, which resulted on extra work load for TA • An education/communication/branding campaign needed before the technical process starts, so that ministries would take more serous the obligations inserted in the law

  18. Next Measures • Law on Basic Principles Regulating Entrepreneurial Activity (11 August 2006) • Guillotine of laws • Most regulations to be adopted by law • Market criteria for assessment • RIA • Medium Term Strategy for Regulatory Reform – 2006/2009 • RIA Methodology • SMEs Strategy

  19. Law on Basic Principles Regulating Entrepreneurial Activity • The Law sets the following principles: • Predictability of regulations; • Transparency in decision-making and regulation; • Regulatory Impact Assessment; • Material and procedural regulations on business start up, business development, and business close up only by laws; • Proportionality.

  20. Phases of Implementation • Phase I: 11 Aug. -26 Nov. 2006 • Phase II: 26 Nov. 2006 – 26 Feb. 2007 • Phase III: 26 Feb. – 26 May 2007 • Phase IV: until 30 Nov. 2007

  21. Phase I: 11 Aug. -26 Nov. 2006 • Public authorities develop draft modifications and amendments to the normative acts in their area of activity. • Authorities submit to the Commission/NWG/RIA Secretariat drafts and information notes for review, and concomitantly present to the Parliament a report on the results of review of normative acts at the respective stage.

  22. Phase II: 26 Nov. 2006 – 26 Feb. 2007 • State Commission examine the drafts and submit its review to the authorities. • State Commission presents to the Parliament a report on its review of normative acts.

  23. Phase III: 26 Feb. – 26 May 2007 • Authorities develop, based on the State Commission’s review, the final draft and information notes, and adopt or submit them for adoption in accordance with the law.

  24. Phase IV: until 30 Nov. 2007 • Revision by the Parliament, and adoption of modifications as well as abrogation

  25. Lessons Learned (I) • Low quality involvement in the exercise of private sector representatives, except foreign investors; • Lack of financial and human resources from the side of the Government, fact leading to a need of foreign TA;

  26. Lessons Learned (II) • Old mind set in case of most ministries. It took a while to “educate” them which led to time loosing and low quality of the interaction between theministries and NWG, which resulted on extra work load for TA • An education/communication/branding campaign needed before the technical process starts, so that ministries would take more serous the obligations inserted in the law

More Related