Developing Capacities at Local Level for the Implementation of Mechanisms for Proactive Communication with Citizens (MK0075)

Developing capacities at local level for the implementation of mechanisms for proactive communication with citizens

XV. Local Open Government: Capacity Building 

Commitment 6.1: Developing Capacities at Local Level 

Commitment Text: 6.1. Developing capacities at local level for the implementation of mechanisms for proactive communication with citizens: 1) Evaluation of the capacity of municipalities to provide proactive communication with citizens; 2) Development of a Program to strengthen the capacity of municipalities; 3) Preparation and implementation of training for trainers;  4) Preparation of curriculum and training materials; and 5) Implementation of the Program and Training Plan.

Responsible institution(s):  Ministry of Local Self-government 

Supporting institution(s): All municipalities, Association of Local Government Units of the Republic of Macedonia – ZELS; UNDP; local communities; civil society organisations^{[Note 126: The full list of CSOs listed as supporting institutions is Center for Civil Communications; Center for Research and Policy Making; Association for the Development of the Roma community in Macedonia; Centre for Development and European Integration – Bitola; Educational-humanitarian organization-Stip; Green Power – Veles; Institute for Economic Strategies and International Affairs Ohrid – Skopje; Macedonian Center for International Cooperation; and CSW - Coordination Unit of Forums.]} 

Start Date: 1/1/2014   End Date: 31/12/2016

Commitment aim

This commitment envisages the further strengthening of local capacities for proactive communication with citizens. In particular, it aimed to conduct a needs assessment; develop a training program, training materials, and a “training of trainers” course; and carry out capacity-building activities to support proactive consultations and communication with citizens.

Status

Midterm: Limited

The government’s midterm self-assessment reported on the monitoring activities of civil society. However, those activities focused on analyzing current trends in participation, rather than providing an assessment of the needs of local authorities. The Association for Local Self-Governments and Community Forums also conducted capacity-building activities, but they were limited in scope. For these reasons, there was little progress on this commitment in the first year of implementation.

For more information, please see the 2014-2016 IRM midterm report.

End of term: Limited

The government’s end of year self-assessment discusses only the activities implemented within the framework of the Community Forum, which is a mechanism for consultation and co-decision with citizens on projects, programs, policies, or budgets at the local level.^{[Note 127: For more information, please see: http://www.forumivozaednicata.com.mk/index.php.]} The IRM researcher confirmed that, in the second year, 10 new municipalities were included in the program, and trained on the subject of consultative mechanisms and consultation processes.

Nonetheless, this was part of a larger developmental program of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation that had been implemented since 2006, and would have been implemented despite OGP. The IRM midterm report stated that multiple initiatives are still taking place without proper coordination and transfer of knowledge. It was difficult for the IRM researcher to assess the initiative’s impact and potential changes on municipalities while there were no new initiatives supported within the OGP framework. 

Did it open government?

Access to information: Marginal

Civic Participation: Marginal

Stakeholders were already engaged at the local level before the second national action plan was adopted.^{[Note 128: Most important and widespread are 'mesni zaednici', 'forumi na zaednicata ', 'oddelenija za komunikacija.']} This commitment intended to improve local capacity for inclusive decision making. While consultations were mandatory in some areas (e.g., urban planning) and institutional mechanisms existed to guarantee civic participation (e.g., ‘rural and urban communities’), citizens were not being consulted in practice.^{[Note 129: See, for example, Civic Engagement Study for trends on civic participation, accessible at: http://www.civicengagement.mk.]} Therefore, this commitment attempted to institutionalise the culture of consultations, a long-standing priority for civil society.

The activities that were part of this commitment provided access to information and public consultation in ten new municipalities where community forums were implemented.^{[Note 130: With this, the total number of budgetary community forums was 30 for the period 2014-2017, Community Forums Newsletter No.5, 2016 available at: http://bit.ly/2jRxuze [In Macedonian].]} Both local officials and civil society agree that the forums are inclusive and useful for local decision making. They have a very good reputation, and annual calls for participation usually attract interest from many municipalities. Some municipalities have continued to implement them, even after participation in the program.^{[Note 131: Three municipalities implemented forums independently in 2016: Demir Kapija, Novaci and Kriva Palanka.]} After a decade of implementation, most municipalities organised some kind of community forum. Despite these positive outcomes, the IRM researcher believes the activities had only a marginal impact, as decision making in the targeted municipalities improved in only ten out of 84 municipalities. Moreover, the fact that the measures were included in OGP hardly impacted the existing Community Forums program. As the forum coordinator pointed out, OGP helped spread information about the program during OGP events and in the OGP working groups.^{[Note 132: IRM researcher interview with Kristina Hadzi Vasileva.]} 

Carried forward?

The new action plan continues to focus on opening local governments. It includes nine commitments and 31 milestones. Capacity building of civil society and citizens is mainstreamed and included in most commitments focusing on particular policy areas or competences of the municipalities.