1 / 10

The case study: Montenegro The Capacity Development Program me

The case study: Montenegro The Capacity Development Program me for the State Administration of the Republic of Montenegro. Presented by : Mirsad Bibovic , UNDP LO Montenegro. Discussion topics. Public Administration Reform Management The CDP: between the best practice and the deficiencies

santa
Télécharger la présentation

The case study: Montenegro The Capacity Development Program me

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. The case study: Montenegro The Capacity Development Programme for the State Administration of the Republic of Montenegro Presented by: Mirsad Bibovic, UNDP LO Montenegro

  2. Discussiontopics • Public Administration Reform Management • The CDP: between the best practice and the deficiencies • Challenges and options • Closing comments and discussion

  3. BUT… PAR activities are performed along with regular duties of the ministry with extremely limited HR and material resources Number of Public Management functions (HRM, training etc.) could not be developed within the ministry, and therefore new institution had to be established Lack of mechanisms to provide for effective inter -ministerial coordination of reforms Accountability issue: tradition of top-down management requires support by strong accountability mechanism and institutions to control legality and acceptability of administrative conduct PRESENTLY… Key legislation adoptedbut still weak implementation and poor coordination of reforms Public Administration Reform ManagementWhat’s thepresent status?

  4. Key incentive for reform: EU integration • TheCopenhagen political, economic and administrative criteria formembership (June 1993)...followed by the Agenda 2000 which further lays out the membership eligibility criteria. • “The Thessaloniki Agenda for the Western Balkans (June 2003 )”…established mechanisms of intensifying the SAP through the introduction of European Partnerships • “Voluntarily harmonisation” with Acquis Communautarie of countries that seek accession POLICY LINKAGE FOR THE CDP: Perspective entering of the country into the EU

  5. …however, the EU integration is a process rather than an event • EU today = a “moving target” for countries that seek to enter • It is envisaged that the future EU enlargements will pose administrative challenges beyond those faced by the earlier joiners? IN ADDITION… “Competition” of key national priorities: EU integration versus the resolution of the state status Limited capacity (HR, institutional, high cost… Unhelpful donor practices Minor adjustments to existing structures versus deep structural reforms???

  6. CDP: What was externally evaluated as “the best practice” ? • Partnership…through the Executive Committee and the Supervisory Board • “The culture of Ownership”…through the active decision-making role of MIEREI as Chair of the Executive Committee, plus the role of the Deputy Prime Minister as chair of the CDP Supervisory Board • Focus …of limited resources on three Ministries, avoiding areas that were targeted for more substantive support from other donors such as the EAR, the WB, US-AID • Flexibility… allowing programme management to define and deliver technical assistance on a case-by-case basis aligned to more detailed needs as they emerged during programme implementation • Experimental, Learning and Pilot Approach…a ‘learning’ exercise for both programme management as well as for beneficiary ministries and their impacted staff

  7. The key “success factor”: Institutional and Management Arrangements DONORS GOVERNMENT SUPERVISORY BOARD Chair - Deputy Prime Minister MIEREI MIEREI JUSTICE FOSI - ROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chair - Minister, MIEREI EDUCATION UNDP - LO FINANCE +++ TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT UNIT +++

  8. …and the CDP deficiencies: • Resource Mobilization… government unable take the lead role in mobilizing resources for the CDP. • Donor Coordination… in the apparent absence of government or donor leadership there was an opportunity for the CDP, on behalf of the government and Deputy Prime Minister to take the lead role on this issue • Communications and Public Relations…not enough aggressivepresentation of programme results and and rather weak public relations • “Expensive” Programme Management Support…the PMU costs on the 25% of the total budget

  9. Strategic: Policy Environment: political, uncertain Policy Linkages: EU Integration, PAR From ‘policy’ to ‘implementation’: urgent need tostrengthening the centre of government (the PM’s Office and the General Secretariat) Keep an eye on big picture: “focussing on practical and pragmatic things might, in the long run, have little impact on the overall capacity building” Ownership Focal Point (esp. central focal point Operational: Coordination: government & donor (esp. EU/EAR) The Partnership (role, nature and membership in the CDP) Programme planning (government & ministry programs, CARDS, etc.) Service delivery & support (Government, PMU, PPP, Others?) Communications & information exchange Resource mobilization Challenges and options:

  10. Closing comments and discussion…the challenge of the CDP Guiding Principles: Dynamism Partnership Sustainability

More Related