TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach … Policy...TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach Mechanism in Albania (Bridge Support) – 2016/375038/1 Policy Paper – Nov

PolicyPaper [Draft] SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING IPMG STRUCTURE& CONSIDERATIONS ON

THE DELINEATION OF NEW IPMGS

TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach Mechanism in Albania

(Bridge Support)

Albania

November 2016

This report was prepared with the financial assistance of the European Commission. The views expressed in this report are those of the consultants and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission

Particip Consortium comprising: PARTICIP GmbH comprising: Cardno, DIHR, Deutsche Welle, ECDPM, Epes Mandala, EPRD, EuroPlus, GOPA, ADE, JCP

TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach Mechanism in Albania (Bridge Support) – 2016/375038/1

Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Contents Particip | Page 2

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations 3

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Purpose 5

2 Background 5

2.1 Legal Basis 5

2.2 Sector Approach 5

3 Current IPMG Mechanism 6

3.1 Structure 6

3.2 Experience to Date 8

3.2.1 Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness 8

3.3 DIP Cooperation & Coordination 13

3.3.1 All DIPs 13

3.3.2 European Union 13

3.4 Draft PM Orders 14

3.5 SWOT Analysis 14

4 Proposed Measures 14

4.1 Summary 14

4.2 Consultation Process 15

Annexes 16

Annex 1: SWOT 16

Annex 2: Sector Table 18

Annex 3: Sector Delineation Criteria 21

Annex 4: Draft Prime Minister’s Order 24

Annex 5: Some Definitions 26

Annex 6: Merging IPA II and IPMG Monitoring Processes 28


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Abbreviations Particip | Page 3

List of Acronyms & Abbreviations

Item Description

C&I Competitiveness & Innovation

CH Switzerland

CoM Council of Ministers

CoE Council of Europe

DDFA Department of Development & Foreign Aid

DE Germany

DoEVET Department of Employment and Vocational Education & Training (MSWY)

DoP Department of Pensions (MSWY)

DoPA Department of Public Administration (PMO)

DoSP Department of Social Policies (MSWY)

DoSS Department of Social Services (MSWY)

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction & Development

ESP Employment & Social Policy

EU European Union

EUD Delegation of the EU to Albania

GEE Gender Equality Employee

GG Good Governance

ICITAP International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Programme

INSTAT Institute of Statistics

IPA (Single) Instrument for Pre-Accession

IPS Integrated Planning System

IPMG Integrated Policy Management Group

IR Inception Report

IT Italy

IWM Integrated Water Management

MARDWA Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Authority

MEDTTE Ministry of Economic Development, Tourism, Trade& Entrepreneurship

MEnIn Ministry of Energy & Industry

MENV Ministry of Environment

MES Ministry of Education & Science

MoF Ministry of Finance

MoH Ministry of Health

MoI Ministry of Interior

MoJ Ministry of Justice

MoSIPA Minister of State for Innovation & Public Administration Reform

MoSLI Minister of State for Local Issues

MoSRP Minister of State for Relations with Parliament

MSWY Ministry of Social Welfare & Youth

MTI Ministry of Transport & Infrastructure

NAIS National Agency for Information Society

NSDI National Strategy for Development & Integration (2015-20)

NSP National Sector Programme


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Abbreviations Particip | Page 4

Item Description

NWC National Water Council

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development

OSCE Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe

PAR Public Administration Reform

PM129 Prime Minister’s Order Nº 129 (21/09/2015)

PMO Prime Minister’s Office

SE Sweden

SIGMA Support for Improvement in Governance & Management

SPC Strategic Planning Committee

SPP Single Project Pipeline

SSP Sector Support Programme

SWAp Sector (Wide) Approach

ThG Thematic Group

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

US United States of America

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Main Text Particip | Page 5

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the present paper is to underpin the selection and delineation of sectors to be covered by the Integrated Policy Management Groups (IPMGs) under the sector approach to the programming, coordination and implementation of domestically and externally funded interventions aiming at the development of Albania and its future integration into the European Union (EU).

As part of a series of measures taken on behalf the GoA by the Department of Development & Foreign Aid (DDFA) of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) during 2016 to enhance the IPMG mechanism, this paper presents the basis for a roll-out of that mechanism.

2 Background

2.1 Legal Basis

Following a period of preparation, the IPMG mechanism was established on a pilot basis by Prime Minister’s Order Nº 129, dated 21 December 2015 (hereinafter: ‘PM129’). The establishment of the mechanism aimed to supporttaking institutional and operational measures for the implementation of the integrated sectorial approach, in the framework of the Integrated Planning System (IPS), as the main decision-making system on setting the strategic direction and resource allocation in the country.The mechanism aims at the development, implementation and monitoring of sector reforms in Albania, through the drafting of national sector programs (NSP)and the establishment of a single project pipeline (SPP)for strategic investments, in line with government priorities, the National Strategy for Development and Integration (NSDI) and sector strategies, the process of Medium Term Budget Programme (MTBP), the EU integration process and Albania’s international obligations.

2.2 Sector Approach

The EU defines a sector as a clearly defined area of public policy1, addressing a set of homogeneous challenges, by using dedicated staff and budget, under the authority of a competent member of the government.

The sector approach aims to broaden government and national ownership over public sector policy and decisions on resource allocations with the sector, thereby increasing coherence

between sector policy, government spending and the achievement of results.2Key features of

the sector approach are: existence of a sector strategy, leadership by the responsible governmental authorities, a single comprehensive budget framework, a functional donor coordination with harmonised reporting and monitoring procedures.3

1Sector Approach in Pre-Accession Assistance, European Commission, Brussels, 2013. 2Ibid. 3External assistance based on the sector approach is typically made available when certain criteria are met. For example, EU sector budget support is conditional uponfive key criteria: (i) well-defined national sector policies and strategies; (ii) institutional setting, leadership and capacity for implementation of the sector strategy; (iii) sector and donor coordination; (iv) mid-term budgetary perspectives for sector policy implementation based on sector



The sector approach finds its origin in the Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) concept developed in the 1990s. The SWAp involves thatall significant funding for the sector supports a single policy and expenditure programme, under government leadership, adopting common approaches across the sector, and progressing to relying on government procedures to disburse and account for all funds.4

3 Current IPMG Mechanism

3.1 Structure

As stated, PM129 established the IPMG mechanism on a pilot basis. The IPMGs report to the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC).

Each IPGM has a technical secretariat (TechSec) tasked with organising, preparing the discussion materials for and reporting on the meetings of the IPMGs and ThGs in the sector. A budget management group of representatives of the DDFA, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and the Ministry of European Integration (MEI) acts as advisors to the SPC [Figure 1].

Figure 1: IPMG Mechanism

PM129 states that the DDFA, in its capacity of secretariat of the SPC, will guide the reform process towards gradual introduction of the integrated sectorial approach in all priority sectors and shall act as a central coordination unit for the IPMGs.

The pilot of the mechanism encompasses four IPMGs for a like number of sectors and a total of 19 Thematic Groups (ThGs), each covering a sub-sector. Table 1 sets out the pilot IPMG and ThGs, as well as the government entities leading each (sub-) sector.

budget analysis and sector allocations in Mid-Term Expenditure Frameworks (MTEFs); and (v) monitoring of sector policy implementation and in particular the development of Performance Assessment Frameworks (PAFs).Two additional criteria are: (a) the existence of a public finance management system (efficiency, effectiveness & transparency) and arrangements for sector budgets; and (b) an existing and projected macro-economic framework in which sector policies will be implemented.Source: ibid. 4The Status of Sector-Wide Approaches, A. Brown, A. Norton and F. Naschold, Overseas Development Institute, London, January 2001. In: Sector Wide Approaches for Agriculture & Rural Development, IFAD, Rome, April 2006.



Table 1: Pilot IPMGs

Nº IPMGs Lead Entity

Nº Thematic Groups

Lead Ministry

1 Competitiveness & Innovation [C&I]

Ministry of Economic Development, Tourism,

Trade & Entrepreneurship (MEDTTE)

1 Business Environment MEDTTE

2 Trade Integration MEDTTE

3 Industry MEDTTE

4 Services MEDTTE

5 Innovation MoSIPA

2 Employment & Social Policy [ESP]

Ministry of Social Welfare & Youth (MSWY)

6 Pensions & Social Insurance MSWY

7 Employability, Employment & Skills MSWY

8 Social Protection MSWY

9 Social Inclusion & Equality MSWY

3 Good Governance & Public Administration Reform [GG/PAR]

Minister of State for Innovations & Public

Administration (MoSIPA)

10 Policy Making DDFA

11 Civil Service Reform & HR Management DoPA

12 Public Service Delivery MoSIPA

13 e-Government& Digitalisation NAIS

14 Anti-Corruption MoSLI

15 Decentralisation MoSLI

4 Integrated Water Management[IWM]

National Water Council (NWC)

16 Water for Food MARDWA

17 Water for People MTI

18 Water for Industry MEnIn

19 Water for Environment MENV

The operations of the pilot IPMG and ThGs follow the‘generic guidelines’ for IPMGs annexed to PM129, accompanied by operational guidelines for the ThGs prepared by technical assistance in 2015.5

The structure of the IPMGs is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: IPMG Structure

5The DDFA has sponsored the preparation of more detailed operational guidelines for each of the four pilot IPMGs, which exist in draft versions. These guidelines will require consolidation and harmonisation in the form of an additional, formal instrument such as a PM Order.



3.2 Experience to Date

3.2.1 Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness

The first year of the IPMG mechanism offers a mixed picture regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.

Mandate & Tasks.The generic guidelines attached to PM129 describe the responsibilities of the IPMGs in 17 bullet points. These responsibilities emphasise an advisory role for the IPMGs and accord them management functions in relation to the dialogues between stakeholders, including the DIPs the respective sectors. In addition, the IPMGs have the right to make recommendations to the SPC in respect of monitoring sector strategy implementation and amending sectoral strategies. The four sets of draft guidelines for the pilot sector contain shorter, slightly diverging versions of the responsibilities listed in the ‘generic’ responsibilities. The most important divergence is in the draft guidelines for the GG/PAR sectors which lets the IPMG ‘decide’ on inter alia resource allocations within the sector in the framework of the MTBP. The other three draft guidelines do not give the IPMG decision-making powers. Since the powers of IPMGs across sectors should not differ, the guidelines for the IPMG would need to be harmonised. In addition, the guidelines might be given a more formal character by renaming them ‘IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure’.

Thematic Groups. The Thematic Groups operations arebased onguidelines outlined in the generic IPMG guidelines and further detailed in draft ‘Operational Guidelines for Thematic Groups’. The latter refer to the ThGs (and, for the matter, the IPMGs), as ‘supervisory and coordinating bodies’. The ‘supervisory’ element of this characterisation does not match the detailed description of ThGs’ role and responsibilities in these documents. Essentially, the ThGs provide sector stakeholders with a platform for dialogue in the interest of a coordinated application of the sector approach, with an advisory role vis-à-vis the IPMGs.

The draft guidelines for Thematic Groups are elaborate and in places duplicate the IPMG guidelines. In the interest of simplification, the ThG guidelines might be harmonised and integrated into a single, formal document entitled ‘IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure’.

The four ThGs in the IWM sector have virtually the same membership. Table 2 shows that representatives of five centre-of-government and line ministries serve on all four ThGs. Two line ministries (MTI, MUD) are represented on three ThGs, with MTI chairing one ThG. Two ministries (MoH, MEnIn) are a member of two ThGs, and in the chair of one of these. One ministry (MoI) is represented on one ThG only.Taking into consideration the large number of ThG meetings in relation to the preparation of the NSP for the water sector,some degree of rationalisation in terms of meeting frequency is indicated.

Table 2: IWM Sector: ThG Membership

Ministries

Thematic Group Membership

Water for Food

Water for People

Water for Industry

Water for Environment

Agriculture, Rural Development & Water Administration Chair √ √ √

Economic Development, Tourism, Trade & Entrepreneurship √ √ √ √

European Integration √ √ √ √

Ministry of Energy & Industry -- -- Chair √

Environment √ √ √ Chair

Finance √ √ √ √

Health -- √ -- √

Interior √ -- -- --

Transport & Infrastructure -- Chair √ √



Ministries

Thematic Group Membership

Water for Food

Water for People

Water for Industry

Water for Environment

Urban Development -- √ √ √

Frequency of meetings. The guidelines foresee the IPMGs to meet four times a year. The ThGs meet as required, at the discretion of the Chair.

The Competitiveness & Innovation (C&I) IPMG has met twice since its establishment. In December 2015, it held its introductory meeting. A second meeting was held at the end of October 2016.

The Employment & Social Policy (ESP) IPMG has met three times, with each meeting preceded by meetings of the sector’s four ThGs.

The Good Governance & Public Administration Reform (GG/PAR) has met three times. The sector’s six ThGs have met at various intervals, with some (Anti-corruption, e-Governance & Digitalisation and Civil Service Reform) convening more often than the other others ThGs, including Decentralisation, which has met only once.

The Integrated Water Management (IWM) IPMG and its four ThGs have been quite active, with many meetings especially in relation to the preparation of the National Sector Programme (NSP) for the water sector [Table 3].

Table 3: IPMGs & Thematic Group Meetings to Date

Pilot IPMGs Nº of Meetings

Thematic Groups

Nº of Meetings

Competitiveness & Innovation [C&I] 2 Business Environment 0

Trade Integration 0

Industry 0

Services 0

Innovation 0

Employment & Social Policy [ESP] 3 Pensions & Social Insurance 3

Employability, Employment & Skills 4

Social Protection 3

Social Inclusion & Equality 4

Good Governance & Public Administration Reform [GG/PAR]

4 Policy Making 2

Civil Service Reform & HR Management 2

Public Service Delivery 3

e-Government& Digitalisation 3

Anti-Corruption 2

Decentralisation 1

Integrated Water Management[IWM] 0 Water for Food 9

Water for People 8

Water for Industry 9

Water for Environment 10

Technical Secretariats.PM129, in the generic guidelines attached to it, gives the TechSecs a key role in the IPMG mechanism. Their responsibilities are laid down in 26 points, including several that concern a leading role, such as leading the process of:

Establishing the sector strategic objectives;

Drafting and approving a unique matrix forprioritisation sector projects prioritisation; and

Analysing the financial gap, in cooperation with the ThGs.



The TechSecs further have responsibility for coordinating the preparation of NSPs in each sector and liaison with all stakeholders in the sector, including DIPs. In practice, the TechSecs are not yet able to carry out all their tasks6. This is partly due to their current staffing. Although all four TechSecs for the pilot IPMGs have been established, they are operational to various degrees.

In the case of the ESP TechSec, its complement is two part-time staff who struggle to cope, given their other duties. The C&I and GG/PAR TechSecs have three staff, who undertake the IPMG related work in addition to other duties. The IWM TechSec operates a on quasi-full time basis with three staff, in close cooperation with the 20 staff of the Water Secretariat attached to the National Water Council (NWC).

The generic guidelines stipulate that TechSecs shall consist of a Head, two specialists and an administrative assistant, all full-time. Given the large number of tasks ThGs should fulfil, this staffing complement is a minimum. The Government expects thefull staffing complements to be achieved over time, as human resources availability allows, but recognises that for the present reality falls short of the target.In addition to the number of staff, their qualifications and analytical skills may affect TechSec functioning of TechSec and thus merit careful consideration,in accordance with civil service regulations.

Apart from the staffing issue, the pilot TechSecs are not well placed hierarchically to take on a leading role in planning and organising the work of IPMGs on behalf of their Chairs, in accordance with PM129. TechSec personnel lack the position within their respective ministries to invoke the necessary cooperation from ranking officials in those ministries and other line ministries involved in the sub-sectors. This means that, in practice, the TechSecs rely on the authority of the Chair of the ThGs, typically a Deputy Minister or Director-General. However, these officials have other calls on their time that may prevent them from actively guiding the work of the TechSec on a continuous basis.

Annual Work Plan. The procedures annexed to PM129 foresee that each IPMG prepares an annual work plan (AWP) to schedule its meetings and activities. The draft detailed guidelines for each IPMG [Footnote 5] contain such AWPs or at least schedule of meetings for the year 2016. Two of the four calendars differ as to format and content.

The draft operational guidelines for both the C&I and ESP IPMGs contain a detailed calendar that focuses on the budget process, including the macro-economic & fiscal framework and the MTBP. The calendars do not refer to the NSP for either sector, although the preparation of this sector programme is highlighted as a critical task, elsewhere in the respective draft guidelines.

The calendar for the GG/PAR IPMG focuses on the MTBP process and includes the timing of 4 quarterly reports on monitoring (sub-) sectoral strategies.

The draft operational guidelines for the IWM IPMG contain a ‘road map’ for the ThGs and a meeting schedule for the IPMG. Both these documents focus on the preparation of the NSP for the IWM Sector. The TechSec and the Water Secretariat have stuck to the road map, which involved more than 30 ThG meetings, to arrive at a draft NSP, for submission to the IWM IPMG meeting scheduled for December 2016.

Meeting Outcomes.The ThGs in the ESP and GG/PAR sectors have met primarily to discuss sub-sector monitoring and progress reports. It is unclear to what extent the ThG

6 Perhaps in recognition of the wide-ranging functions of TechSecs per PM129, the draft guidelines for the pilot sectors slightly reduce their burden of responsibilities, but without amending their central role in making the IPMG mechanism work as designed.



discussions have resulted in recommendations and discussion topics for IPMG meetings.The minutes of ThG are not always prepared in English, leaving participating external stakeholders, including DIPs, at a disadvantage.

A matter of concern is the degree of influence that civil society may exercise on the outcomes of IPMG and ThG meetings. Civil society representatives can and– in some cases, such as the Anti-Corruption ThG in the GG/PAR sectordo – participate in ThG meetings. However, the minutes do not always reflect their contribution to the discussions.

Also in the case of IPMG meetings, it is unclear to what extent these have led to recommendations by the DDFA to the SPC or input into the discussions by that body.This suggests that the role of the DDFA in respect of guiding and collation the outcomes of the discussions in IPMG and ThG meetings deserves further attention and detailing in the ‘IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure’.In the absence of a formal mandate of the PMO’s constituent departments, such mandate needs to be written, if only to enable DDFA guidance of the IPMG mechanism.

National Sector Programmes. PM129 identifies the preparation of NSPs for each wider sector –in line with Government priorities, the NSDI and sector strategies, the MTBP process, EU integration and Albania’s international obligations – as a key task of the IPMG mechanism. The generic guidelines indicate as the IPMGs first set of tasks: (i) leading the NSP drafting process; (ii) overseeing the preparation of NSPs, including SSPs7; and (iii) ensuring that NSPs are aligned with key milestones in the NPEI and the recommendations of the annual EU Progress Reports. The draft guidelines for three of the four pilot IPMGs echo the need to prepare NSPs for their sectors. The draft guidelines for the GG/PAR IPMG make no mention of an NSP for that sector.

The NSP for the IWM sector will be largely completed by end-2016. The ESP IPMG has access to a clear guide8 on the scope and process of preparation of the NSP for that sector, but work on that NSP, as well as the those for the other sectors has not started.

A recent review9 of the need for and process of NSP preparation revealed that the preparation of such sector programmes (including actions plans) would add value in terms of strategy implementation.The added value of an NSP would be: (i) to consolidate the strategies in those sectors with several policy and strategy documents; and (ii) to provide a longer perspective link between sectoral strategies, sector action plans and the programmes set out in the rolling, 3-year MTBP. Since the preparation of NSPs will incur costs and take time, the Government will task each IPMG to assess carefully the need for an NSP in its sector and justify the effort of its preparation in the work planning.

Each IPMG will first draft an NSP. This document will be the basis for the coordination and monitoring work of the IPMG. It will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, especially where it concerns the link with the MTBP (which is subject to a separate process headed by the MoF). The NSP reviews and where necessary re-establishes the link between strategies and MTBP on a continuous basis, hence the need for periodical review of the NSP.

An NSP, as specific, time-bound and costed set of actions, which support sector strategy implementation addresses necessary interventions related to a sector’s objectives. It makes efforts to join all relevant sector stakeholders during the planning and monitoring of the implementation. A ‘wider’ sector has a specific institutional and technical framework. The

7The SSPs will contain those elements of the NSPs supported by EU and other DIPsby means of technical assistance, grants, budget support,loans, etc. 8A Resource Document for Thematic Groups to Guide the Preparation of the National Sector Programme and Sector Support Programme in the Employment & Social Policy Sector, September 2015.

9Note – NSP Pros & Contras – FV01, BS Team, Tirana, 23 September 2016.



definition of the sector in the Sector Table [Annex 2], anchors the sector policy in the broader national policies, taking account of cross-sectoral issues.

As NSPs cut across different ministries and entities, it presents a challenge regarding the establishment and fine-tuning efficient IPMG arrangements, but at the same time offers opportunities for ensuring that all interventions contribute towards thesector objectivesthrough synergies between different sector components, projects and DIPs, thus avoiding duplication and fragmentation.The main advantages of NSPs stems from the establishment of a stronger link between planning, implementation and management and a stronger focus on strategies and outcomes.

The success of the SWApwill rely on the NSP setting out correctly the political, economic and institutional context, wedded to continuous efforts to integrate government decision making processes into an effective IPMG mechanism, representing a lasting partnership between GoA and DIPs. The preconditions for successfurther include a broad and effective government ownership of the IPMG and NSP instruments, strong and effective leadership with regard NSP preparation and periodical review and update, through commitment at senior political level and active involvement of key ministries and implementing agencies.

Cross-cutting Issues

The treatment of cross-cutting issues by the IPMG mechanism is a matter that deserves attention. The sector approach relies on sector definitions that are wider than ‘traditional’ sectors. This makes it easier to capture cross-cutting issues pertaining to more than one sector. As currently constituted, the IPMG mechanism deals with cross-cutting issues in a variety of ways.

In respect of the participation of civil society, the guidelines in force stipulatethat the membership of IPMGs must include a representative of the National Council for Civil Society Development. The ThG Chairs may invite representatives of civil society entities to their meetings on a needs basis, but participation of civil society representatives does not imply membership, nor does it guarantee civil society taking influence on the outcome of ThG meetings. It is proposed to as permanent of each ThG representatives of relevant CSOs in two areas: Environment and Civil Society. In addition, each ThG might have as a permanent member the Gender Equality Employee (GEE) in each of the ministries leading an IPMG.

In respect of gender equality, the Gender Focal Point or Gender Equality Employee (GEE) of the lead ministry in each sector are members of the respective IPMGs. The participation of GEEs in ThG meetings is optional and on invitation by their Chairs only.

Environmental cross-cutting issues come up in many (sub-) sectors, including agriculture, energy, industry, integrated land management, integrated water management and transport. The IPMG mechanism as currently constituted does not include a dedicated IPMG for environmental matters. Only the ThG ‘Water for Environment’ under the IWM IPMB takes a wider view of environmental aspects of water and waste water management.

As stated, it would be possible to strengthen the representation of the cross-cutting issues in all three areas, by making civil society representatives, GEEs of all sub-sector lead ministries and representatives of the Ministry of Environment permanent members of all ThGs, and by spelling out their role in the functioning of the ThGsin the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure.



3.3 DIP Cooperation & Coordination

3.3.1 All DIPs

The IPMG mechanism was established inter alia to improve cooperation and coordination10 with the country’s Development & Integration Partners (DIP), by strengthening Government ownership and leadership. The IPMG mechanism aims to replace to the Sector Working Group (SWG) system operational in the period 2004-14 and, in the pilot sectors at least, has begun to do so. In the sectors not covered by IPMGs, the SWG system continues to play a role, albeit with less vigour than before.

Although DIPs are keen to see a mechanism that would allow for the mooted sector approach to be deployed in full, some leading DIPs consider the current design of the IPMG mechanism to be overly elaborate and complex. DIPs share with the Government the desire to reduce the number of coordination meetings and, at the same time, enhance the quality of Government reporting on the achievement of the objectives under the various assistance programmes.

For this to be realised, DIPs must accommodate a less direct form of dialogue in that the focus on DIPs individual programmes of support – however well-placed strategically – is replaced by an approach founded in the Government’s (sub-) sectoral strategies. For the mechanism to fulfil this role, participation in and even membership of sub-sector lead donor representatives in all ThGs will be considered. The Government will further seek and put in place measures for simplifying the IPMG system,through better integration of Mandate & Rules of Procedure, standardisation of texts, emphasising similarity of activities related to the functioning of IPMG ThGs, as well as streamlining strategies through the means of harmonised NSP templates.

3.3.2 European Union

The Government and the European Commission have established, in the context of managing the utilisation of the EU-funded pre-accession support, a sophisticated monitoring system to assess the level of achievement of the joint objectives of that support. The IPA monitoring system relies on Sectoral Monitoring Committees, which produce semi-annual reports, as well as an Annual Implementation Report (AIR), for the consideration of the Government and the Commission Services. The Ministry of European Integration (MEI), under the leadership of the National IPA Coordination (NIPAC) and the Ministry of Finance, through the National Authorising Officer (NAO) are responsible for implementing the monitoring system. So far mainly dealing with IPA I projects (2007-13), the system is currently being prepared to take on the monitoring of IPA II (20014-20) programmes, including possible EU-funded budget support in five sectors.

The Government has taken steps to prevent, if possible, the existence side-by-side of demanding monitoring systems, in this case the IPA monitoring system and the IPMG mechanism. A joint investigation by the DDFA and the MEI has shown that merging IPA monitoring and reporting into the IPMG mechanism is a practical proposition in that the latter can deliver the reports required by the former in a timely manner, in accordance with the stipulations of the IPA implementing regulation and the SPC’s strategic monitoring needs [Annex 6]. Further work on detailing the work flows and business processes, including those pertaining to the DDFA, is needed and will be completed by end-2016.

10 On the definition of these terms and their link to integrated policy making, please refer to Annex 5.



3.4 Draft PM Orders

Upon conclusion of the pilot phase of the IPMG mechanism, there will be a need for the Government to replace PM129 with the appropriate instrument(s)to consolidate and expand the mechanism.This or these will include revised, simplified mandates & rules of procedure of a more formal character, based on drafts already available and due for harmonisation and finalisation by end-2016.

3.5 SWOT Analysis

An analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the IPMG mechanism, as it is currently in place [Annex 1],revealed as its:

main strengths that it puts Government-led coordination first, with a firm basis in the sector approach supported by all DIPs;

main weaknesses that the mechanism does not yet have the necessary human resources and that the TechSecs are not well positioned with their respective line ministries;

main opportunities thatit may eventually serve as the basis for complex EU structural &cohesion fund coordination and that it provides a platform for the Acquis negotiations with the EU; and

main threats that it is not yet tailored to DIPs’ specific coordination needs and that the Albanian administration’s capacity for change management in this sphere is still limited.

4 Proposed Measures

4.1 Summary

The above considerations suggest the following measuresregarding the further development and roll out of the IPMG mechanism:

Finalise the existing draft operational guidelines in harmonised form to serve the consolidation and expansion of the IPMG mechanism. The harmonised and simplified guidelines will combine instructions for the IPMGs and the related ThGs in a single document. This document will be given more formal character by restyling it as‘IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure’.

Include in the ‘IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure’ clearer instructions on the expected outputs of the ThG meetings as input into IPMG meetings, as well as the expected outputs of IPMG meetings in terms of advice to and recommendations for consideration by the SPC.

Improve the preparation by TechSecs of IPMG and ThG meetings. The meetings need to yield substantive conclusions on key topics within the ambit of the IPMG mechanism and, above all, recommendations regarding decisions within the power of lead ministries or the SPC. Each topic to be considered at IPMG meetings shall be introduced in a short discussion paper, setting out the problems to be discussed and the remedies proposed for adoption by decision makers.

Give more prominence to the central role in the IPMG mechanism of the DDFA, as the Secretariat of the SPC and as such responsible for channelling the conclusions and recommendations generated by the mechanism to the SPC.

Rationalise, in the context of the roll-out of the IPMG mechanism, the membership of Government entities in ThG, with the aim to reduce the number of meetings representatives of sector stakeholdersmust attend.



Ensure that the staffing complement of each IPMG TechSec will meet the minimum set out in PM129 on a full-time basis and that TechSecs generally are positioned in such a way that they report directly to the most senior civil servant in the sector lead ministry or agency.

Since the preparation of NSPs envisaged in PM129 will incur costs and take time, the Government will task each IPMG to carefully assess the need for an NSP in its sector and justify the effort involved in its preparation in the IPMG’s Annual Work Plan, including the possible deployment of externally funded technical assistance (TA).

Strengthen the representation and mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues civil society, environment and gender equality, by including civil society representatives, representatives of the Ministry of Environment and the GEEs of all sub-sector lead ministries as permanent members of all ThGs.

Include the representative of the lead DIP in each sub-sector in the membership of the relevant ThGs to facilitate DIP participation in (sub-) sectoral strategy formulation and implementation. The IPMG Mandate & Rule of Procedure will reaffirm the IPMG Chair’s discretion to invite a representative of the lead DIP in each sector to attend meetings of the relevant IPMG.

Ensure that further work on detailing the work flows and business processes related to a merger of the EU/IPA monitoring system into the IPMG mechanism is carried out and completed by end-2016. This will enable the IPMG mechanism to generatethe reporting required by the IPA implementing regulation and the strategic monitoring needs of the SPC.

End the pilot phase of the IPMG mechanism and roll out its coverage across all sectors by increasing the number of IPMG and the related ThGs [Annex 2: Sector Table]. The complete IPMG mechanism as proposed shall encompass 9 IPMGs and 39 ThGs.

Replace PM129 with the necessary instrument[Annex 4: Draft PM Order] to amend the current IPMG mechanism where necessary, consolidate it and roll it out across all sectors. The instrumentshallintroduce the new delineation of sectors encompassing the existing pilot sectors as well as additional sectors, based on a set of criteria and boundary limitations [Annex 3].

4.2 Consultation Process

This policy paper and the IPMG mechanism’s sector composition shall be subjected to consultation, in accordance with standard practice within the administration.

The consultation shall encompass at least:

a presentation of the draft Policy Paper to the SPC to secure approval of the draft;

a presentation of the proposed IPMG sectors to all line ministries to invite comments (Nov-Dec 2016;

a presentation of the proposed IPMG sector to DIPsand to CSO representatives (including the National Council for Civil Society Development)to invite comments (same period);

compilation of a final version of the Policy Paper and IPMG sector composition (Jan-Feb 2017).


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 1: SWOT Particip | Page 16

Annexes

Annex 1: SWOT

Strengths

S W

Weaknesses

Puts GoA policy coordination & monitoring needs first

Administratively complex, because any ‘wide sector’ delineation will leave some issues

straddling sectors

Remedy: Simplification of work flows to the detriment of specificity

Based on the SWAp used by GoA and DIPs for cross-cutting coordination and budget support

Not designed for DIPs’ specific programming,

coordination & monitoring needs

Remedy 1: Good meeting preparation in respect of relevant DIP’s needs by strong, well-positioned

TechSecs

Remedy 2: Documented, longer-term personal

membership of ThGs, as much as possible across-ThGs within the same sector11

Combines IPMG, IPA and other DIP coordination & monitoring requirements in one mechanism

Requires strong TechSecs attached to the Secretaries-General of lead ministries, possibly

affecting hierarchical relations

Remedy: Full-time TechSecs, reporting to Secretaries-General

Re-introduces the long-term perspective on coordination & monitoring under the SWG system (2004-14)

Sensitive to drastic administrative restructuring upon changes in government

Remedy: Include TechSecs as dedicated part of the civil service within lead ministry mandates Aligned to medium-term financial planning

adopted by GoA (MTBP)

Opportunities O T Threats

Basis for coordination and management of Structural & Cohesion Funds (SCF) upon EU accession

Lack of tailoring to DIPs’ specific programming, coordination & monitoring needs leads DIPs to

continue to seek alternative access to policy makers

Remedy: DIPs to adhere to procedure set out in international agreements on aid effectiveness

(Paris, Accra, Busan)

Training tool for complex coordination & monitoring required by S&CF, regional development and CBC programmes

Failure to establish effective TechSecs with core competencies for carrying its mandate, including

the organisation of IPMG/ThG meetings, undermines the mechanism’s functioning

Remedy: Full-time TechSecs, reporting to Secretaries-General

Platform for generating input into Acquis negotiations

Institutional inertia re adoption of new mechanism through absence of effective change

management

Remedy: DDFA to take charge visibly of IPMG

11 ThG membership in the water sector illustrates that the same entities are represented on that sector’s ThGs, but not necessarily by the same persons, who in any case may differ from meeting to meeting, without clear justification.


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 1: SWOT Particip | Page 17

mechanism

Slow, piecemeal and reluctant (due to perceived duplication) uptake on the IMPG mechanism in

the absence of a concerted communication effort

Remedy: Design a professional communication campaign in support of the introduction of the

IPMG mechanism

The existence of several other coordination platforms (Acquis negotiations, Key priorities,

SAA working groups) that may affect or limit the scope of the IPMGs/ThGs work

Remedy: Spell out, in the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure, the relationship between the

IPMG mechanism and these platforms


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 2: Sector Table Particip | Page 18

Annex 2: Sector Table

The table sets out the existing, amended and proposed IPMGs &ThGs. These are set off against, respectively: (i) the former Sector Working Groups (SWG); (ii) the IPA II sectors in the ‘Indicative Strategy Paper for Albania 2014-20’; (iii) the relevant chapters of the Acquis; (iv) the Lead Ministry (proposed to be) chairing the Thematic Groups (ThG) under each IPMG; (v) the leading DIPs in each (sub-) sector; and (vi) relevant programme codes in the MTBP.

Nº Pilot/Potential IPMGs

Nº Thematic Groups

Former SWGs

IPA II Sectors

Acquis Ch.

CurrentLead Ministry

CurrentLead DIPs

MTBP 2016-18 Codes

1 Competitiveness & Innovation [C&I]

1 Business Environment Private Sector Development, Quality Technology, Internal Market, Tourism & Urban Development, Property Rights

Competitiveness & Innovation

[EFEES; WBEDIF; Business & Investment Development Strategy; SME]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5-9, 16-17

MEDTTE IT/IT/EBRD 04-04130

2 Trade Integration 1, 29, 30

MEDTTE IT/EU 04-04160

3 Industry 20 MEDTTE IT/n.a. 04-04160

4 Services 3, 5, 9 MEDTTE IT/WB 04-04760

5 Innovation 25 MoSIPA IT/IT 04-04130

6 Integrated Land Management

23 MoJ/MUD/ MEDDTE

WB 94-06180

2 Education, Employment& Social Policy [EESP]

7 Pensions & Social Insurance

Social Insurance Education, Employment & Social Policies

[TVET; Social Inclusion; Human Resources Development]

2, 19, 22

MSWY (DoP) UN/WB 25-10220

8 Employment & Skills Employment & TVET, Youth & Culture

MSWY (DoEVET)

UN/EU/ CH 25-09240; -04170; -10550

9 Social Protection Social Protection & Inclusion

MSWY (DoSS)

UN/WB/ UNICEF

25-10430

10 Social Inclusion& Equality Social Protection & Inclusion,Gender Equality& Domestic Violence

MSWY (SoSP)

UN/UNDP 25-10460

11 Education Education 26 MES UNICEF 11-09120;09230;09450

12 Culture Culture 26 MoC UNESCO 12-08220;08230

3 Energy (excl. Water) & Transport [ENT]

13 Renewable Resources & Energy Efficiency

Energy Energy (distribution) 15 MEnIn WB/DE/ EBRD

14 Distribution MenIn, MTI

15 Gas & Fuels MEnIn

16 Transport (Road/Rail) Transport Transport [CAB, policy, approximation

14, 21 MTI WB




Nº Thematic Groups

Former SWGs

IPA II Sectors

Acquis Ch.


CurrentLead DIPs

MTBP 2016-18 Codes

&investment (roads, rail network, CA, ports)]

17 Transport (Civil Aviation/Maritime)

4 Environment (includingWater) [ENV]

18 Environmental Planning12

Environment Environment& Climate Action

[EU legislation, investment, water, WWT, floods & SWM; and Climate actions]

27 ENV SE 26-05320

19 Environmental Healh13

Environment, Water 27 ENV DE/DE 26-05320

20 Production & Waste14

Environment, Water 27 ENV/MTI DE/WB 26-05320

21 Chemical Safety15

Environment, Water 27 MARDWA DE/SE 26-05320

22 Emissions16

Environment 27 MEnIn DE/WB 26-05320

5 Good Governance & Public Administration Reform [GG/PAR]

23 Policy Making (including Statistics, Civil Society & Parliament)

Anti-Corruption, Public Administration, ICT, Information Management & Technology, Training & Equipment, Media & Civil Society, Decentralisation, Parliament, Elections & Civil Registry

[Democracy & Governance; PAR (CoG/Local); Policy making; CS reform]

18, 23-24, 34

DDFA SE/EU/OSCE/ CoE (Media)

24 Civil Service Reform & HR Management

23 DoPA EU/EU

25 Public Service Delivery 28 MoSIPA EU/WB

26 e-Governance & Digitalisation

10 NAIS EU/WB

27 Anti-Corruption 23 MoSLI EU/EU

28 Decentralisation 22 MoSLI EU/CH

6 Health [HE] 29 TBD Health 28 MoH WHO 13-07220;0726;07330;07450

7 Justice, Home 30 Police Albanian State Police Rule of Law & 10, 23, MoI US (ICITAP) 16-03140

12 Sustainable development strategies, climate protection, energy & traffic pollution & efficiency, renewable energy & noise. 13 Water bodies & soil protection, public-health issues, including air & drinking water quality and protection of nature & ecosystems. 14 Sustainable production products & consumption, waste water & hazardous waste management, waste technologies, recycling & circular economy. 15 Chemical risks & international chemical safety, chemical control & management, hazardous substances (to water) and pests. 16 Industrial & energy installation and emission trading, control & reduction.




Nº Thematic Groups

Former SWGs

IPA II Sectors

Acquis Ch.


CurrentLead DIPs

MTBP 2016-18 Codes

Affairs &Rule of Law[JHR]

31 Community Policing & Crime Prevention

Community Policing & Crime Prevention

Fundamental Rights (Home Affairs)

[Police; Organised Crime, Trafficking; Money laundering; Migration & asylum; Integrated BM]

24, 30, 31

16-03140

16-03140 32 Integrated Border

Management & Migration Integrated Border Management & Migration

33 Justice Justice Rule of Law & Fundamental Rights (Justice & Human Rights)

[TA (MoJ, courts & PI); Human rights; Property rights; Media freedom; Anti-corruption]

23 MoJ US (ICITAP)/ UNICEF

14-xxxxx

34 Witness Protection Witness Protection

35 Legal Reform, Juvenile Justice & Prison Reform

Legal Reform (incl. Juvenile Justice & Prison Reform)

8 Rural &Regional Development [RRD]

36 Agriculture (excl. Water) Agriculture, Food & Rural Development

Agriculture & RD

[EU standards & competitiveness; Climate change; Food safety; Veterinary & phytosanitary; TA for CB, IPARD, extension, food safety, policy, statistics, MISs, fish production, standards, management)]

11-13 MARDWA DE 05-04220; -04230; -04240; -04860; -05470

37 Rural Development 11 MARDWA DE 05-04250

38 Regional Development (Proto-Structural Instruments)

Decentralisation & Regional Development

Territorial & Regional Cooperation

[CBC (tourism, social inclusion, environment & cultural heritage, competitiveness)]

22 TBD/MoLI?? DE/EU 25-08480

9 Public Finance Management [PFM]

39 No need for ThG, if frequency meeting exceeds 4/year

Public Finance, Public Procurement

Democracy & Governance

[Revenue & budget; Procurement; Accounting; Debt management; Audit & Control; Customs/Tax IT (inter); Statistics; Civil Soc]

5, 10, 16, 17, 18, 32,

33

MoF EU/WB 10-yyyyy


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 3: Criteria Particip | Page 21

Annex 3: Sector Delineation Criteria

1. Introduction

Annex 2(above) presented the proposed sector definition.

Section 2below provides the 7 criteria underpinning the definition of each sector. Section 3 summarises the advantages and disadvantages attaching to the proposed IPMG structure.

2. Criteria& Boundary Limitations

The criteria considered for delineating the IPMG sectors are summarised in the following table.

Nº Criteria Weight

[1-3]

1 Coverage of GoA priority areas, NSDI & sector strategies and ERP [1] 3

2 Minimal duplication and overlap with existing coordination and monitoring systems [2] 2

3 Merger of the IPA II SMC system into the IPMG mechanism to the extent possible [3] 2

4 Safeguarding the former SWG structure in the form of Thematic Groups [4] 2

5 Link with EI negotiations, Acquis chapters and key EU Directives [5] 2

6 IMPG size: Natural Persons: <60; Entities: <30; Number of ThGs per IPMG: <7 [6] 1

7 LMs preparedness to cooperate with the sector [7] 1

In addition to the delineation, there are three ‘boundary limitations’. The total number of IPMGs should be limited: preferably less, but no more than 10. Bundling of sectors within one IPMG must yield synergy. This excludes the bundling education and health.Both ruled by large spending ministries, these sectors have little in common. Because it has existed for longer than any other ‘sector’ and can boast both internal coherence and a specific role regarding the MTBP and local government financing, Public Finance Management (PFM) constitutes a separate IPMG.

3. Advantages & Disadvantagesof the Proposed Sector Delineation

This section describes advantages and disadvantages of the choice of (sub-) sectors in each IPGM (both pilot and new), as set out in the Sector Table [Annex 2].The relationship with the 6 GoA priorities and the link with IPA II sectors has been taken as paramount. The relevant criteria are marked in brackets [].

Re 1: Competitiveness & Innovation [C&I]

Advantages Disadvantages

This sector constitutes combines most aspects of promoting FDI, a GoA priority [Criterion 1]

Adding the sub-sector ‘Integrated Land Management’ serves the GoA priority of promoting FDI [Criterion1]

Most elements are in the mandate of one ministry MEDTTE [Criterion 2]

It addresses key aspects of the acquis [criterion 5]

This sector also includes ‘innovation’ is part of acquis chapter 25, 26 (science & research), which are under

sector education [Criterion 5]

It remains to be decided which ministry should lead the ‘Integrated Land Management’ sub-sector. MoJ or

MEDTTE, for both suggest themselves [Criterion 7]

Re 2: Education, Employment & Social Policy [EESP]


Reflects former SWG structure [4]

It addresses key aspects of the acquis and reflects

Perhaps too big a sector as now constituted [6]

Culture’ is plausibly bundled with ‘Education’, but perhaps less so with ‘Employment’. The link with ‘Youth’



acquis in that culture is linked with education [5]

Supports planning and implementing future Cohesion & Structural Fund programming [5]

The larger part of externally funded education projects, concern the labour market [5]

(in MSWY) is plausible [4]

Re 3: Energy (excluding Water) & Transport [EMT]


Good linkage with ERP (transport) and GoA priorities (Pillars II & III) [1]

Reflects IPA II in respect of transport [3]

Reflects former SWG structure well [4]

No link for energy and transport with IPA II [3]

Re 4: Environment (including Water)


The sector is a GoA strategic priority (Integrated Water Management, Pillar IV) [1]

It reflects an IPA II priority area [3]

It reflects the former SWG structure (Environment, Water [4]

It addresses a single chapter of the acquis in a coherent manner [2] & [5]

Good preparedness to cooperate [7]

There will be a need to bundle the current four pilot ‘water’ ThGs (Food, People, Industry & Environment) and

emphasise environment mainstreaming as cross-cutting issue and match to relevant EU Directive [4 & 5]

A large sector, with many entities (>30), which complicates coordination [6]

Re 5: Good Governance & Public Administration Reform [GG/PAR]


This sector covers the key aspects of the foundation of the GoA’s [1]

It is the only logical home for interventions addressing the Parliament [2]

It addresses related aspects of the acquis [5]

Anti-corruption, figures, but is also an element of the Justice sector [2]

A bit of a mix of different sub-sectors, without necessarily great linkage [5]

Re 6: Health [HE]


Minimal duplication and overlap with existing coordination and monitoring systems [2]

Reflects former SWG structure [4]

Not applicable

Re 7: Justice, Home Affairs & Rule of Law [JHR]


Very important sector for the GoA priorities [1]

Good sector coherence [2]

Rule of Law & Fundamental Rights [3]


Reflects IPA well (Democracy & Governance) [5]

Very important sector for the accession process [5]

Not necessarily good cooperation between Home Affairs and Justice apparatus [7]

Re 8: Rural & Regional Development [RRD]


Reflects IPA II prioritisation [3]

Reflects the former SWG structure well [4]

A large sector, with many entities (>30), and a strategy for regional development that still needs start of

implementation [6]



NB: It needs to be established which GoA entity will lead the Regional Development Sector

Re 9: Public Finance Management [PFM]


Very important sector for GoA priorities (Pillar I) [1]

Good sector coherence [2]


Very important sector for the accession process [5]

Not applicable


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 4: Draft PM Order Particip | Page 24

Annex 4: Draft Prime Minister’s Order

ORDER

Nº ___, dated __/__/2017

ON

ROLL OUT OF THE INTEGRATED POLICY MANAGEMENT

GROUPS MECHANISM

Pursuant to Clause 3, Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and Article 11 of Law

Nº 9000of 30/01/2003, ‘On the Organization and Functioning of the Council of Ministers’ and

replacing Prime Minister’s Order Nº 129of 21/09/2015,

ORDER:

1. Taking the institutional and operational measures for the implementation of the sector approach

within the framework of the Integrated Planning System (IPS), the main decision-making system

on setting the strategic direction and resource allocation in the country.

2. Further development and expansion of the mechanism for integrated sector management in the

form of Integrated Policy Management Groups (IPMG), in accordance with the IPMG Mandate &

Rules of Procedure attached to this order (Annex 1), in the following sectors:

(i) Competitiveness & Innovation

(ii) Education, Employment & Social Policy

(iii) Energy & Transport

(iv) Environment

(v) Good Governance & Public Administration Reform

(vi) Health

(vii) Rural & Regional Development

(viii) Justice, Home Affairs & Rule of Law

(ix) Public Finance Management

3. The IPMG mechanism shall serve the development, implementation and monitoring of sectoral

reform in Albania, inter alia through the drafting of National Sector Programmes and the

establishment of a Single Project Pipeline for strategic investments, in line with Government of

Albania priorities, the National Strategy for Development & Integration (NSDI), applicable sector

strategies, the Medium-Term Budget Programme (MTBP), the EU integration process and

Albania’s international obligations.

4. The IPMGs are responsible for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of all

Government programmes, project and actions, whether domestically or externally funded, in their

respective sectors.

5. Each IPMG shall be chaired by the Minister of the lead ministry in the relevant sector as

identified in the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure. The Minister is responsible for and

oversees the management and operations of the sector IPMG. Day-to-day management of the

IPMG is the responsibility of the Secretary General of the sector lead ministry.

6. Annex 1 lists the entities within the Albanian administration that are represented on the IPMG for

each sector. Entities shall be represented on the IPMG at the level of Secretary General or Deputy


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 4: Draft PM Order Particip | Page 25

Minister. Agencies and Departments shall be represented at Director General level.

Representatives of each institution are assigned by the respective heads of institution, in

accordance with the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure.

7. IPMG meetings may be attended by representatives of other entities, of civil society and of the

Development & Integration Partners (DIP), at the discretion of the Chair of the IPMG and in

accordance with the theme and agenda of each IPMG meeting.

8. Each sector IPMG shall be assisted by Thematic Groups with responsibility for the coordination

and monitoring of programmes and activities in sub-sectors as set out in the Sector Table attached

to this order (Annex 2).

9. The Minister chairing the sector IPMG shall appoint the chairperson of the Thematic Groups in

accordance with the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure.

10. Each IPMG shall be assisted by a dedicated, full-time Technical Secretariat established within the

lead ministry for the sector. The Technical Secretariats report directly to the Secretary General of

the lead ministry. The Technical Secretariats shall be staffed and shall operate in accordance with

the relevant provisions in the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure (Annex 1). The responsible

Secretary General may assign to the Technical Secretariat tasks other than those in Annex 1.

11. The National Water Council will perform the Integrated Policy Management Group function in

the area of integrated water management. The Technical Secretariat of the National Water

Council shall act as Technical Secretariat for this IPMG.

12. The department within the Prime Minister’s Office acting as the Technical Secretariat of the

Strategic Planning Committee (SPC)shall guide the introduction and establishment of the

integrated sector approach in the above-listed sectors and shallbe responsible for the overall

coordination of the IPMG mechanism, in accordance with the IPMG Mandate & Rules of

Procedure.

13. On behalf of the Chair of the IPMG, the Secretary General of the sectoral lead ministry, assisted

by the IPMG Technical Secretariat, shall report to the SPC, through theresponsible department

within the Prime Minister’s Office, in accordance with the IPMG Mandate & Rules of Procedure.

This decision shall enter into force immediately.

PRIME MINISTER

EDI RAMA


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 5: Definitions Particip | Page 26

Annex 5: Some Definitions

Policy Integration vs. Policy Coordination

The analysis in support of the revision of the existing IPMG structure and the identification of new sectors (as required as per ToR) showed that some terms are used in relation to quite different concepts.

The term ‘policy’is sometimes treated interchangeably with term ‘strategy’. But, whereas a strategy sets out what is to be done and how, apolicydescribes decision-makers’ thinking.

‘Policy integration’ concernsthe management of cross-cutting issues in policy-making that rise above the boundaries of established policy areas, and which do not correspond to the institutional liabilities.

In the IPMG mechanism context, this means that policy should guide institutional and operational sector reform toward better horizontal and vertical integration between public entities and professionals, as well as vertical integration between different levels of governance. Thus, sectoral policy integration should:

provide a blueprint of the institutional adjustments to be undertaken to shift the decision-making process from project-based to SWAp.

formulate the responsibilities of top level management regarding the establishment of full integration

definethe integration target to be achieved.

delegate responsibilities as far down the ‘line’ as practical.

Achieving effective integration goes beyond merely aggregating independently formulated policies across the different domains (United Nations, 2014).

Integrated policy-making is quite distinct from policy coordination. Policy integration is more sophisticated than policy coordination (OECD, 1996). Policy integration requires more inter-sectoral interaction with cross-cutting objectives than policy coordination, which is when organisations essentially have the same sectoral objectives.

Policy integration occurs when a single, joint policy is developed and implemented by all relevant sectors. A high level of policy integration is achieved when all concerns are embedded within all potentially relevant policy goals and shared policy goals embedded within an overarching strategy.

Coordination vs. Cooperation

Inter-organisational co-operation is defined as the presence of deliberate relations between otherwise autonomous organisations for the joint accomplishment of individual operating goals17.

In the case of co-operation, two organisations work together to accomplish their own goals, while in the case of co-ordination, the joint decisions and/or actions result in joint outcomes that may be quite different from their initial preferred outcomes. An example of enhanced integration of policy goals is offered by the internal coordination of climate change policies within the European Commission.

Policy coordination is more far-reaching than co-operation. At low degrees of integration policy goals regarding a cross-cutting problem may be restricted to one or a few domains and associated policies. In contrast, shifts toward enhanced policy integration are accompanied by a diversification of policy goals across domains (cf. Peters and Hogwood

17 John R. Schermerhorn, 1975: Inter-organisational Development.


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 5: Definitions Particip | Page 27

1985). Stead (2008) provides an example of low integration in terms of policy goals by arguing that the integration of transport policy is hindered by the autonomous and sectoral goal-setting by other subsystems. An example of enhanced integration of policy goals is given by Hustedt and Seyfried (2015), who show how enhanced internal coordination of climate change policies within the European Commission resulted in the adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation goals in the policies of other domains, such as energy and maritime affairs.

Figure 1: Integrated Policy Making, Coordination and Cooperation

The process of making policy can be disaggregated into stages and sub-stages, which make up a policy cycle[Figure 2]. Policy making begins with agenda setting, i.e. consideration of an issue that requires attention. It then moves to policy formulation, i.e. consideration of options to address the problem, which is followed by decision making, i.e. choosing a course of action. In the policy implementation phase, the selected direction and approach translates into action on the ground. Policy outcomes are assessed in the evaluation phase, often leading to setting a new agenda. An ‘integration filter’, i.e. a search for the appropriate inter-linkages, may be applied at every stage of the continuous (and not necessarily linear) policy cycle (UNEP, 2009).

Figure 2: Policy Making Cycle

Policy makers often aspire, for good reason, to policy integration but as the OECD has observed, there are limits to the extent to which policy integration can be achieved in practice. The pragmatic approach adopted [] has led to a measure of caution concerning the extent to which coherence can, in practice, be strengthened. It has also raised the concern that excessive efforts to enhance coherence can result in a high degree of central control, and a consequent loss of flexibility in the policy making system18.

18OECD, 1996:8


Policy Paper – Nov 16 – Annex 6: Merging IPA II & IPMG Processes Particip | Page 28

Annex 6: Merging IPA II and IPMG Monitoring Processes

Documents

TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach … Policy...TA to Support the Integrated Sector Approach Mechanism in Albania (Bridge Support) – 2016/375038/1 Policy Paper – Nov