Functional Review of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

their tasks and the importance of the activities performed predetermine that both CEOs report directly to the Minister rather then to the PS. Despite the absence of a unified approach elsewhere, we recommend that a common management / reporting line is defined for all MESP units. That means that the PS would have managerial responsibility for what we define as the central MESP. This would then apply to all policy (formulation and monitoring) departments within the MESP portfolio. The policy implementation units (MESP agencies) can stay under direct control of the Minister with some sort of central MESP supervision of their performance necessary to allow policy feedback. We recommend that the supervision function of central MESP towards its agencies is strengthened significantly. The agencies should remain independent in their operation; however the efficiency of policy execution should be monitored and evaluated closely by the central MESP. This is good for both the policy formulation feedback and managerial accountability of agency executive officers. This recommendation is in line with the Whole of Government Review and also applies to all other ministries. Implementation of this step helps to distinguish policy and legislation function undertaken by the departments and implementation and environmental monitoring activities what are in most cases realized by agencies and institutes under the MESP. Recommendation II.5: Adjust and unify the management / reporting lines. Define the subordination of agencies and departments clearly and consistently. Substantially different is the position of the Institute for Spatial Planning (ISP) which we recommend remains under the direct supervision of the Department of Spatial Planning mostly because of its supportive function in the urban/spatial planning processes and its irredeemable position in the reviewing and monitoring of the documents of the spatial planning in the whole territory of Kosovo. It is worth noting that KEPA, KCA and ISP use fully compatible Geographic Information System (GIS) technology which allows the centralizing of all environmental and spatial data into one data warehouse. This centralization does not mean the automatic creation of a new unit or increasing the expenditure in hardware or software - it simply gives an emphasis on the human capacity inside the KEPA. In the medium-term it is possible to think about the creation of a fair base for the development of Environmental Monitoring System in whole Kosovo. Recommendation II.6: Create a central GIS coordination unit with the aim to develop the environmental monitoring system in whole Kosovo. A similar principle as for the agencies could be applied also for the Management of National Parks (NP) where the consultants’ proposal is to integrate it within the KEPA portfolio. At the time of the report writing there was established in Kosovo only NP Mali Sharr and in the short term is envisaged to constitute the NP Bjeshkët e Nemuna. This seems to be sufficient for the long term. Merging could bring a mutual benefit for the both - The Institute for Nature Protection, which creates an integral part of KEPA and the Management of National Parks. Certain independence for the director of the NP can be ensured in the case of managerial subordination and also with the distance of the NP headquarters location. It is necessary to mention that this entire merger should not be accompanied by a decrease in remuneration or the relative importance of managers and employees of the affected units. II.4 Strategic and policy planning It is repeatedly noted throughout the report that strategic and policy planning capacity in the Ministry is among the weakest although they represent the most important core competencies of a government institution. Strategic planning at MESP (with some exceptions) is driven bottom-up, fragmented, and often formulated by foreign advisors instead of MESP managers. There is a procedure in place that governs the creation of an annual activity plan for the MESP, and that is part of a government-wide effort to establish some sort of strategic planning. Having a one-year focus, this plan cannot serve as a base for strategic decision making within the organization. Furthermore, plans are prepared at department level and then compiled 15
and summed up for the whole ministry. We recommend to complete the planning activities with a mediumterm focus, and to add a top-down kick-out phase to the process that would clearly set up ministry wide priorities right at the beginning. A monitoring procedure that would report the achievements and/or failures to MESP top-management should be established as well. We also recommend establishing a steering group for strategy formulation, covering department and agency heads. The department and agency heads already meet on a regular (weekly) basis with the Minister and/or Permanent Secretary and could adopt this role. A clear strategy formulation procedure, written instructions with responsibility and timelines, and reservation of sufficient time span to discuss the strategy is required. . We suggest appointing for special occasions a working group or ad hoc committee to solve particular problem. This practice is common in the environmental administration throughout EU. The Permanent Secretary bears managerial responsibility for development within the Ministry. With several units and all agencies out of his direct reach, this responsibility can only be enforced to a limited extent. The PS is carrying a significant administrative load with a total of 13 structural MESP units reporting directly to him along with numerous other responsibilities and functions. The number of units reporting directly to the PS is probably too high and certainly too fragmented. As can be seen from the organigram and the staff list the PS does not have any deputies. The ability of a public administration to formulate and implement coherent policies and strategies is a key indicator of administrative capacity. This chapter addresses the decisive issue whether and how the current environmental administration satisfies the requirements in domestic and in the international contexts. Its performance in this regard can be best assessed by reviewing the administrative results achieved to date in Kosovo as they relate to the key environmental administration functions as defined elsewhere in this report. The MESP has developed several short and medium-term sectoral strategies and planning documents (some of them by the foreign experts or under their supervision) which contain clear strategic objectives and performance indicators. The overall policy planning, evaluation and monitoring capacity in the MESP is very limited which is also reflected in absence of up-to-date policy planning documents in policy sectors except for spatial planning. However other environmental sectors, i.e. water and wastewater management, solid waste management, air quality, inspection and enforcement, nature conservation and biodiversity protection are still without definition of clear vision, mission and values and valid medium term policy documents. The policy planning process in the Ministry is operational in nature, predominantly for oneyear periods at a time and typically takes the shape of annual programming policy documents – compact 1-2 page long documents defining objectives, describing choice of measures and justifying budget expenditure for the specific policy programme / activity. The Kosovo Environment Action Plan 2006-2010 (KEAP) brings a comprehensive list of priority projects spread over all significant areas of environmental interest. The law on Environmental protection [No. 2009/03 L-025 (Art. 24)] requires preparation of Local Environmental Action Plans (LEAPs). The actual situation is that only few municipalities have prepared a LEAP in Kosovo. More impact and priority is attributed to European Partnership Action Plan (EPAP) adopted in 2008 and updated in 2009. It is a general document addressing most economic and social issues, which covers also environment, spatial planning and housing. Although, it follows the priorities listed by KEAP 2006-2010, it is more concrete in designating the necessary follow-up. Other important documents covering a narrower focus possess a high value. –These include the Environment and Spatial Planning section of the Program of the Government of Republic of Kosovo 2008 – 2011,the Sectoral Strategy for Spatial Planning 2007 – 2013 and Business Plan for the Kosovo Cadastral Agency 2009 – 2014.. The preparation of these strategies and plans is required by law and visibly affects the administration involved. However their actual realization is far behind expectations. Recommendation II.7: Place and define strategic and policy planning process within the MESP and create efficient steering mechanisms to implement policy strategies top-down. Elaborate medium term strategy documents for each sector. 16
Page 1 and 2: Functional Review and Institutional
Page 3 and 4: ABBREVIATIONS ACDEI - Agency for Co
Page 5 and 6: Performance results are less satisf
Page 7 and 8: This survey did not included the en
Page 9 and 10: The above-mentioned mandate require
Page 11 and 12: SECTION II: CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS
Page 13: Coordinating internal policies prep
Page 17 and 18: The common duration of an employmen
Page 19 and 20: SECTION III. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARD
Page 21 and 22: determine the charges for public ut
Page 23 and 24: SPATIAL PLANNING / HOUSING AND CONS
Page 25 and 26: SECTION IV. SUMMARY AND SEQUENCING
Page 27 and 28: ANNEX 1. PROPOSED MESP STRUCTURE Ma
Page 29 and 30: D Dep. State Secretary D.1. Investm
Page 31 and 32: ANNEX 3: LIST OF INTERVIEWS AND MEE
Page 33 and 34: 14. On Package and dump package 15.
Page 35: REFERENCES 1. Environmental Strateg

Functional Review of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?