Presentation given by Junahin Lemmik.

1. © OECD
AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
System of Medium-Term
Planning in Montenegro
Policy Options
Juhani Lemmik, OECD/SIGMA
Podgorica, 30 September 2015

2. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
What Constitutes a Medium-
Term Planning System?
• How different planning documents relate to
each other (systemic requirements)
• Who manages and co-ordinates that the
different documents are aligned
• Requirements for planning documents set
• Make sure that what is planned is aligned with
Government objectives and fiscal reality
1

3. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Current Situation in Montenegro
• Some key documents
 Government Work Programme
 Programme of Accession
 Montenegro Development Directions 2014-2018
 Fiscal Strategy
 Guidelines for Macroeconomic and Fiscal Policy
 IPA sector planning documents
• Conclusion: essential building blocks are there
2

4. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Current Situation in Montenegro (3)
• Ca 90 sector strategy documents
 71% of strategies have implementation plan
 62% foresee reporting
 45% have cost estimates attached
 30% require mid-term review or ex-post evaluation
• In some areas probably too many strategies
 IPA chapters 19, 26 and 28 have each more than 10
• Conclusion: uneven coverage and quality
3

5. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Current Situation in Montenegro (2)
• Legal acts do not define institutional
responsibility for overall management and co-
ordination of the planning documents
• Ministry of Finance checks soundness of
policies against the fiscal strategy
• MoFA&EI checks soundness of sector policy
documents against IPA requirements and EU
accession obligations
Conclusion: No explicit responsibility for a
unified planning system
4

6. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Overall Conclusion
No uniform approach towards defining medium
term planning documents or planning system in
general
5

7. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Recommendations
• Decide about which institution would have the
formal responsibility for managing planning
documents
 Unit responsible for servicing the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet of Ministers
 Unit responsible for managing the budget process
• Set requirements for content and check
compliance with minimum quality criteria
 Separate Government decree
 Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of Gov’t
6

8. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
1. Options on Typology and
Hierarchy of Planning Documents
1.1. No formal requirements for typology and
hierarchy
1.2. Strict planning system with sophisticated
system of planning documents
7
+A lot of flexibility for
public administration
- Requires very strong co-
ordination capacity from the
centre to achieve policy
coherence
+ linkages between
planning documents clearly
defined, clear system
emerges
- Takes more effort from the
part of public administration
to comply

9. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
2. Options on Scope of Strategies
2.1. No formal rules on the scope of strategy
2.2. Scope of strategies defined along the
Government priorities
8
+ Flexibility to address any
policy issue through a
strategy whenever needed
- May result in too many and
fragmented strategies, which
also uses a lot of resources
from administration
+ Limits significantly the
proliferation of strategies
+ Follows Government
priorities
- No Government
programme in MNE yet
- With change of
Governments, changes may
be substantial

10. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
2. Options on Scope of Strategies (2)
2.3. Scope of sector strategies aligned to the
policy areas of ministries
2.4. Scope of strategies decided by preliminary
screening
9
+ Would systematically
address all policy areas
+ Accountability achieved
+ Easier to link planning to
budgeting
- May not capture cross-
cutting policy issues
- Not very sensitive towards
Government priorities
+ Ensures disciplined
approach to elaboration of
strategies
+ Ensures co-ordination
between planning documents
- May become a power
struggle between a ministry
and the co-ordinating
institution

11. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
2. Options on Scope of Strategies (3)
2.5. Scope of strategies aligned with IPA sectors
10
+ Ensures clear alignment
with IPA sectors and reduces
need for extra planning
- IPA sectors change over
time
- Not all policy areas are
covered by IPA sectors

12. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
3. Options on Timeframes
3.1. No formal restrictions on the timing of
strategy
3.2. Clear framework on timing of strategies and
other planning documents
11
+ Flexible in the sense that
different policy areas may
require different time frames
- Difficult to compare and use
different policy documents
(e.g. for budgeting or EU
Cohesion Policy purposes)
- The longer the time frame,
the more difficult to predict
the future
+ Consistency between same
type of planning documents
(including action plans)
- May put a lot of pressure to
renew the planning
documents all at once

13. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
4. Options on links to the EU
integration process
4.1. No formal rules on linking national policies
with EU integration process
4.2. Close linkages to the EU integration process
and EU policies
12
+ Less complexity - Would not consider EU
policies as something which
need to be considered
+ Clear thinking about
relationships between EU
policies/EU integration and
domestic policies
- Higher complexity to manage
policies and risk that domestic
policies would be advocated
with reference to EU
requirements

14. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
5. Options Linked to the Budget
Process
5.1. Remaining at the level of fiscal impact
assessment
5.2. Linking planning documents with budget
programmes
13
+ Easier to comply with fewer
new requirements
+ Allows the Government be
informed about financial
feasibility of its decisions
- Does not provide information
on financing options or
sources, neither on clear cut
trade-offs
+ Policy planning becomes
more realistic and predictable
+ Increases quality of
discussions about priorities
- Requires very high level of
technical and policy skills
- Politics may not be conducive
to the idea

15. AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
6. Options on Monitoring,
Reporting and Evaluation System
6.1. Basic requirements for monitoring, reporting
and evaluation
6.2. Comprehensive performance measurement
and evaluation system
14
+ Easier to cope with new
requirements
+ Instils some discipline and
accountability
- Does not ensure timely and
analytical information for
policy-makers
+ Reporting will be
synchronised
+ Evaluations would be
institutionalised
+ Performance information
would be standardised
- Time-consuming and often
does not deliver against the
expectations

16. © OECD
AjointinitiativeoftheOECDandtheEuropeanUnion,
principallyfinancedbytheEU
Thank you!
15