Posted on

The Economist on PPPs in Montenegro

Montenegro was ranked 19th among the 25 states on regional level (Balkan, Central European and Eastern European countries) in the 2012 report of the Economist which evaluates the environment for public private partnerships (PPP).

The criteria used for countries’ rankings were the degree of fulfillment of preconditions for realization of PPP projects. They implied assessment of legal and institutional frameworks, ability for the legal framework to be implemented, investment and finance climates, and ability to implement PPP projects at the local level.

Based on the evaluation of the aforementioned criteria it was noted that there is a significant room for improvements in Montenegro, particularly with regard to the enhancement of legal and institutional frameworks as well as the overall technical capacities for implementation of the PPP projects.

The report took advantage of the 2010 analysis of the Institute alternative Public Private Partnerships – Accountability, Transparency and Efficiency, in which we pinpointed numerous deficiencies precisely of legal and institutional solutions in the country, but also highlighted the lack of expertise for concluding and implementing the PPP projects.

Although the Economist states that in Montenegro there is a political will for enhancement of the legal and institutional preconditions for efficient implementation of the PPP and concessions, we think that precisely the lack of political will is the reason why there is no adequate legal framework. In Montenegro, there is neither an expert core for PPP and concessions. There is also a problem of unclear and intertwined competences and weak coordination between the institutions which conclude and manage the projects according to this model.

Posted on

Press release: Municipal spending in 2012 still a mystery

Only ten municipalities have so far adopted the final budget account (year-end report) for 2012. Although we are already well in the second half of 2013, we are still waiting for a complete information on how the municipality collected and spent funds in the previous year.

Therefore, we still do not know how municipalities spent and collected money in 2012, we do not know how the budget plan was executed. It is quite possible that we will not know for a long time: some municipalities (such as Budva, Plav, Kolašin) adopted their final 2011 budget account reports during 2013.

The reasons for this situation are numerous: breaching of deadlines by the local authorities, lack of interest by the local MPs for budgetary issues and the legal framework that does not encourage budget transparency.

According to the Law on Financing of Local Self-Government, local authorities are required to submit the final account of the budget by the end of May.

The legal framework does not prescribe the deadline for adopting the final account of the budget by the local parliament. The legal framework also does not provide for the obligation of local authorities to report on budget execution during the fiscal year, which means that neither local MPs members nor the public have information on budget execution throughout the year.

Also, it is almost completely useless to discuss the finances of the previous year at the end of this year. Such a late consideration of final accounts in most municipalities ridicules the purpose of its adoption by the local parliament, i.e. control of the budget by the local MPs.

The final budget account, as the final image of budget execution, is the most important instrument for the control of local budgets. It is a key budgetary document by which local MPs and citizens can gain insight into the financial flows of the municipality.

For fiscal transparency, timely disclosure of information is crucial. Local governments that have not yet done so (11 of them), must publish their final budget accounts for 2012 as soon as possible and thus finally reveal how the public money was spent in the previous year.

Marko SOŠIĆ
Policy Analyst

Check out the our new web portal for info on local budgets in Montenegro
www.MojGrad.me

Posted on

Press release: Condemnation of the assault on the journalist of Vijesti and Monitor

Institute Alternative strongly condemns attack on Tufik Softic, journalist of daily Vijesti and weekly Monitor. This case, as well as number of the so far unresolved assaults on journalists, proves that Montenegro is still not an environment in which the opinions can be publicly and openly stated and the issues relevant for the social reforms freely advocated.

Given the pressures which these assaults and threats create onto the all government critics, we urge the authorities to conduct urgent and efficient investigation of the attack on Softic, as well as to resolve and prosecute all the so far cases of assaults on media and journalists. Only by doing so, they will create preconditions for freedom of expression to be guaranteed. There is no democratization of society without the media freedom, neither without the open debate about the significant issues, such as fight against corruption and organized crime. The negotiations with the EU on the Chapters 23, dealing with judiciary and fundamental rights, should have a positive impact onto the media freedom in Montenegro if the resolution of numerous attacks on journalists is defined as one of the criteria for the progress in these talks. Condemnation of these attacks by all free-minded people can also have the same positive effect.

Posted on

Presentation of the web portal www.MojGrad.me

At a press conference held today, Institute Alternative unveiled its new web portal, www.MojGrad.me, whose aim is to increase the transparency of local budgets (Moj Grad stands for My city in Montenegrin).

www.MojGrad.me is a pioneering project of budget data visualization in Montenegro. It was created as part of the project “Monitoring of local budgets”, which aims to increase the transparency of local finance. The project was conducted with the support of the Open Society Foundations (Think Tank Fund and Information Program).

Local budgets in Montenegro are inadequately controlled. Mechanisms responsible for oversight are burdened with problems (local parliaments, commercial audit of the final accounts, state and internal audits). Also, local finances in Montenegro are not transparent, information on local government budgets are difficult to find, and the format in which they are presented is not citizen-friendly. By bringing together all the available information in one place and presenting them in a simple and visually approachable way, we made local budgets closer to citizens and all those interested in local finances.

Data on local finances at the portal www.MojGrad.me can be accessed in three ways:

Through a detailed insight into the finances of individual local governments,
By comparing all local governments according to one of the 33 budget criteria,
Comparing regions of Montenegro according to one of the budget criteria.

Among other things, the portal www.MojGrad.me gives you the opportunity to find:

  • Data on incomes and expenses of all municipalities in Montenegro since 2009,
  • Decisions on the annual (year-end) final accounts of all municipal budgets,
  • Reports of commercial auditors on the final accounts of the municipal budgets,
  • Data on indebtedness (unsettled obligations) of local governments,
  • Data on the number of local employees and their income,
  • Data on the unemployment rate for all local governments, etc.

In addition to budgetary data, the portal offers a glossary of the key concepts, explanation of the budget cycle at the local level, as well as various additional data on local governments in Montenegro. With the support of our media partners, we were able to enhance the web portal with the most interesting newspaper articles on local finances.

In the future, we will update the web portal with new annual budget data. We also wish to introduce certain budget categories with more details and information. At the end, we wish to make www.MojGrad.me a place for all those who want reliable information on local finances.

Posted on

Press release: Four municipalities hiding their public procurement reports

Institute alternative is not able to get to annual public procurements reports for over two months now – from Podgorica, Nikšić, Herceg Novi and Rožaje.

Using the right to obtain information under the Law on free access to information, we’ve addressed 14 municipalities with a request for free access to information, seeking Annual Report on Public Procurements 2012. Ten municipalities responded within the statutory period, but not the remaining four. Irresponsiveness of the local administration to our requests for access to information is indicating a problem of transparency and poor cooperation with the civil sector.

Of the 14 municipalities that make up our sample: Bar, Budva, Cetinje, Podgorica, Danilovgrad, Kolašin, Herceg Novi, Kotor, Tivat, Mojkovac, Nikšiž, Pljevlja, Plužine, Rožaje and 10 of them responded to the request and sent us the the requested documentation, while the four municipalities (Herceg Novi, Nikšić, Podgorica, and Rožaje) gave us no answer, despite multiple attempts on our side to reach them.

We believe that this practice is unacceptable, especially when it comes to the Capital City, which should set an example of transparency, openness and good cooperation with the civil sector.

Marija Popović
Project Associate

Posted on

Press release: Parliament still without a clear framework for participating in accession negotiations

The draft Resolution on the process, the quality and dynamics of integration of Montenegro to the European Union does not recognize the need for more active involvement of the Parliament in this process, does not define the modalities that would allow for this, nor the principles of relations and communication of the Government and Parliament in the negotiations process.

Many months of the working group’s activities, consultations with civil society, suggestions from interested parties regarding a number of models that would contribute to a better position of the Parliament in the process of negotiations have not made any progress in this direction. The text of the draft resolution does not bring any progress in ensuring that the Parliament will provide an active contribution to the process.

The form of resolution suggests it is not a proper sort of document to define these issues, but that should definitely determine the position of Parliament in the negotiations. Provisions that continue to prolong effective supervision over the activities of the executive branch in the negotiation process are especially worrying, because a clear framework for cooperation is not defined, nor inter-institutional model established.

The Parliament decide to go for a model of considering negotiating positions in the Committee for European Integration, marginalizing the role of other committees. This is done at closed sessions, which is not helping the Parliament to fulfill its role in “informing the citizens about the integration process”, which is mentioned in the draft resolution, nor intensive cooperation with civil society and the representatives of other branches of government.

We expect the Committee for European Integration to enhance the text of the Resolution by defining the relationship between the Government and the Parliament in the negotiation process, the obligation of intensive reporting to the Parliament on the fulfillment of obligations under the Action Plans for Chapter 23, and 24, and the conditions for progress in negotiations the other chapters.

Jovana MAROVIĆ
Research Coordinator