Сравнительный обзор участия неправительственных...

“LOCAL GOVERNANCE SUPPORT PROJECT: PARTICIPATION AND PARTNERSHIP” UNDP UZBEKISTAN

Non-Governmental Stakeholder Participation in Local Development

International Experiences for Uzbekistan

Prepared by Soraya Soemadiredja

Intern LGSP UNDP Uzbekistan

The views expressed in this publication are those of author and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or their Member States.

This report is compiled for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Uzbekistan “Local Governance Support Project” (LGSP) on inclusive non-governmental stakeholder participation in regional development, lessons learned and experience of various countries and urban and rural regions.

UNDP Uzbekistan Local Governance Support Project

Soemadiredja 2

Preface “Good Governance, the promotion of democratization and the transparency of decision-making processes are the context for involving stakeholder participation in policy-making. Such involvement was regarded as critical to the development of new partnerships that governments had to forge in order to create and deliver the benefits of economic and social development” (Sen 2000). With this, and the goals for Local Governance Support Project by UNDP Uzbekistan and stakeholder participation and partnership in development within Uzbekistan in mind, this report focuses on the mechanism of participation of non-governmental stakeholders in regional development. In particular, it will explore the various methodologies and guidelines that exist from various sources that are wholly dedicated to studying how to increase the engagement of non-governmental stakeholders in regional development decision-making and implementation processes. Secondly, it will examine some concrete case studies taken from the experiences of other Governments in the regional development strategy plans, the implementation, or in some cases, failure to implement such citizen participation during strategy implementation, and the potential of Uzbekistan to take these lessons learned.

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Uzbekistan and the Local Government Support Project ................................................................ 3

Local Governance Support Project: Participation and Partnership .......................................... 3

Expected Project Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 4

Stakeholder Inclusion Processes ....................................................................................................... 4

Categories of Stakeholders ............................................................................................................ 5

Engagement Process ...................................................................................................................... 5

International Case Studies .................................................................................................................. 6

Czech Republic................................................................................................................................. 6

Estonia ............................................................................................................................................... 8

India .................................................................................................................................................. 10

Macedonia ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Romania .......................................................................................................................................... 12

Russia .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Serbia ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Slovak Republic .............................................................................................................................. 16

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Introduction In order to stimulate sustained economic growth, many Central Governments prioritize decentralization of services and functions to regional and municipal levels of government as


Soemadiredja 3

part of a national and regional plan of development. Under these local governments, local and regional development strategies are implemented, whether directly from the central government and supervised by the local government agencies, or directly supervised and implemented under the purview of local government agencies, or a combination of both central government bodies and agencies and regional and local government bodies and agencies. This requires a strong public administration at both central and local levels of government, supported and buffeted by a framework of legislation, both local and national. However, just as importantly, local and regional strategies for local and regional development require many different innovative mechanisms in order to engage the interest of the important stakeholders, whom not only are composed of government agencies, but importantly, the non-governmental sectors of society, such as the private sector, civil society organisations and citizens. The success or failure of these regional development plans and strategies often hinge on the inclusionary citizen and non-governmental stakeholder participation during planning, implementation and evaluation stages. This report is compiled by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Uzbekistan “Local Governance Support Project” (LGSP). It explores the various methods employed to engage inclusionary stakeholder participation by governments, both at the central and local levels, and by international organisations as well as other collaborations of development projects. It also focuses on lessons learned and experience of various countries and urban and rural regions. The target is to be able to use these comparative studies for future strategic development in Uzbekistan, particularly in non-central, non-urban regions of the country, and to enhance the mechanisms of non-governmental stakeholder participation and interest in local development.

Uzbekistan and the Local Government Support Project In 2000, the Government of Uzbekistan announced a prioritization of public sector reform. The Government emphasized the transferring of government functions to the local levels of government. The purpose of this was to enable regional, city and district khokimiyats, or administrations, to implement regional and local development strategies. In 2010, the United Nations Development Programme “Local Governance Support Project: Participation and Partnership” (LGSP) under the Good Governance Unit, was approved by the Republic of Uzbekistan‟s Cabinet of Ministers. The LGSP targets and activities fall into line with the Concept of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan that focuses “on further deepening of democratic reforms and the formation of civil society in the country.”

Local Governance Support Project: Participation and Partnership The LGSP aims to assist the Government of Uzbekistan to reform local governance through improving the performance of khokimiyats, by strengthening capacities of khokimiyats and by optimizing the fulfilment of functions that are carried out by local government institutions. This is to in order that sustainable territorial development strategies of the regions may be realised. In support of this, the LGSP is designed to support effective cooperation and partnership among local government authorities and non-governmental stakeholders, civil society organisations and the private sector. LGSP works in partnership with both levels of the Uzbek government: the central level, in partnership with the Cabinet of Ministers, and at the local level, in two regions that form pilot regions for the activities carried out under this project, the region of Djizzak and the region of Namangan. At the central decision-making level, the project provides assistance to modernize the public administration system through undertaking analytical research on issues surrounding decentralization, as well as analyzing institutional and legal basis and a functional review to improve cooperation between executive and representative bodies. At the local, regional and district decision-making levels, the project is engaged in: facilitation of


Soemadiredja 4

free access by the population to information that is related to work carried out by local government bodies, as well as implementation of e-Governance tools and establishment of Local Government Information Centers for khokimiyats; strengthening the capacity of locally based civil servants to provide more effective and timely public services to the local population, through professional training and workshops and establishments of local government “single window” One-Stop-Shops for citizens; institutionalizing the mechanism of participation of the private sector and civil society in the planning and implementation of strategy for regional development at the local levels; introducing modern and innovative approaches to develop agrarian regions through improvement of tourism services in Djizzak and Namangan regions.

Expected Project Outcomes By strengthening not only the capacities of the local government bodies, civil society and the private sector, the hope is that with increased stakeholder participation, there is an expected positive result for the pilot regions in joint development and implementation of regional development strategies. Secondly, through the various analytical papers and research commissioned and prepared by the project, as well as from the experiences in the two pilot regions, the Government of Uzbekistan will be aware of and informed of their rich source of experiences and lessons learned in order to be able to scale up the successful experience nationwide. The Government of Uzbekistan is also expected to be able to use these experiences and lessons learned for further application while designing the policies focused on modernizing the nation‟s public administration system.

Stakeholder Inclusion Processes Strategic planning for local development must include theory and practise of inclusion of stakeholder participation, negotiation and decision-making while emphasising a territorial approach, local ownership of strategy and implementation, partnership, and coordination in a top-down and down-up as well as vertically (Ramirez and Kebede 2010). “Stakeholder consultation is...about initiative and sustaining constructive external relationships over time” (IFC n.d.). While the guide to stakeholder inclusion created by the IFC is one that is directed toward business organisations and methods that business organisations employ, stakeholder inclusion outside of the business world is equally important. It is worth noting that there are both advantages and disadvantages to stakeholder participation. Of key importance is that such inclusion benefits lie in the realm of good governance. The engagement of stakeholder participation is a method that governments may use in order to gauge the legitimating of their decision-making processes by non-governmental parties that are affected by the decisions made: civil society, citizens, and the private sector. Conversely, the lack of representation of non-governmental stakeholders in decision-making may cause citizens to lose interest in public policies and government procedures, decrease the public trust in the public agencies and administration, and question the legitimacy of the government. When citizen participation is sought, the government bodies will face citizen apathy toward the government. The advantage of stakeholder participation from non-governmental sources is that it allows for “new insights to bear and helping all to learn from one another” (Dow, Radzik and Macqueen 2009, 24). There is also a disadvantage as it involves longer decision-making and planning periods. In particular, there is a need to build trust between the governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in the policy making process. This requires considerable expense and energy, and does not automatically guarantee agreements on all policy. This disadvantage can be countered by creating conducive environment where the government and government decision-making bodies have over time built trust and working relationships which can be relied upon over time. The consultation process seeks to ameliorate this by involving non-governmental representatives as one which exists, “to encourage and promote


Soemadiredja 5

participation and the involvement in the policy making process of those affected by policy—the citizens of the country” (Government of Jamaica n.d.). Many governments and international development organisations have specific methodologies and codes of practice for the engagement of consultation of non-governmental stakeholders during formation and issues of public policy.

Categories of Stakeholders Most codes of practice involve defining the levels and categorizations of the non-governmental stakeholders. These categories are recognized based on the clear needs of the project. Primary stakeholders are directly affected by the policies proposed, while secondary stakeholders are only indirectly affected. While primary stakeholders would include the citizen body and individual citizens, secondary stakeholders are not, though with significant links and professional relationships with primary stakeholders. These stakeholders fall primarily along the lines of those individuals or organisations such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), those with technical expertise including academic institutions, representatives or intermediary organisations and technical and professional bodies. Secondary stakeholders often may represent public interests. While stakeholders will be defined by their stake in the issue at hand, their control over resources relevant to the issue, and any power or lack of to promote, hinder or block implementation, the consultation process, partnerships and networks formed and information and knowledge sharing during the policy-making and decision-making processes will be more effective if there are a mixture of stakeholders from the public, business, community and non-governmental sector and the general citizenry, as well as including members of the media for increased and enhanced transparency. The needs of the policy-making project will also define the methods of consultations with non-state organisations and stakeholders which will be held. There are several different types of stakeholder participation. “Instructive involvement” is one where a senior body, such as government, makes final decisions, with mechanisms for exchanges of information. “Consultative involvement” of stakeholders are when the non-state stakeholders posses varying degrees of influence over the decision-making process and its outcomes. Despite this a senior body, such as the government, will have final say in policy and decisions. “Cooperative involvement” exists where primary stakeholders and the government are partners in decision making (Sen 2000).

Engagement Process The involvement of non-governmental stakeholders and development of partnerships with the public administration and governing agencies are crucial. With the necessity for such engagement with stakeholders, many international organisations and governments have developed their own stakeholder engagement process guides. Most of the identified key aspects in these guides follow the similar principles and points, encompassing several steps through the policy and decision-making process. An enabling climate needs to exist for such stakeholder participation to be effective as members of the policy-making processes. “good governance, the promotion of democratization and the transparency of decision-making processes are the context for involving stakeholders in policy-making” (Sen 2000). The 2006 UNDP Multiple-Stakeholder Engagement Process report covers the necessary elements that are needed to create an enabling environment, requirements of capacity for effective engagement, and the importance of such engagement in development, capacity building and empowerment. The IFC Stakeholder Consultation Guide provides methodology for iterative consultation for their clients in order to sustain non-government stakeholder interaction during any project


Soemadiredja 6

undertaken. The private sector development stakeholder engagement processes is not dissimilar to the engagement process for non-governmental stakeholder engagement in public sector development. The first step, something that needs to be accomplished prior to any consultative procedure is the need to establish the goals of their project in the context of the aims of inclusionary stakeholder participation in the project‟s particular case. In so doing, the answers will emerege as to who must be consulted, in regards to what topics and for what particular purposes. The second step involves good practices of consultation, all of which deal with specific techniques, methods, approaches, as well as timeliness which depend on the purpose of the stakeholder consultation and the various representatives of stakeholders consulted, and to do so in a timely manner, in particular, earlier during the decision-making processes, and inform the stakeholders of the need for consultation and for what purpose. The third step is addressing the “implicit „promise‟ that, at a minimum, their views will be considered during the decision-making process” (IFC n.d.). While „considered‟ does not equal inclusion automatically or inclusion by right, and that every request will be met by the parties that ultimately design the final policy, however, there is a need to be explicit with the stakeholders about the areas which are open to input and which areas are not, in order to avoid the risk of believing that the stakeholders are not being taken seriously by the decision-makers. Secondly, there is also a need to take the issues, reactions, responses, solutions, suggestions and feedback proposed or presented by the representatives of the stakeholders being consulted. Documentation of processes and results of consultations encompass the IFC‟s methodology‟s fourth step in iterative consultation. By documenting and recording who were consulted, in regards to what issues and topics, when in time and where are all necessary, as it is an important tool that may be used to maintain the accountability to stakeholders and to other partners both within and without the government. Lastly, the final step is the necessary good practice of reporting back to the stakeholders with whom the project was engaged in from the start. This is in order to follow up with the consultations, confirming information provided, explain the process of the policy and decision-making, and explain the next processes that will occur, which may involve refining approaches to consultation in the future.

International Case Studies The following case studies are presented to show various examples of projects and programmes involving engagement of stakeholders, and their successes and obstacles faced. Most involve the public sector, involving regional development plans of various countries, and some are relating to private sector development. Some projects and programmes involve international development or other non-governmental organisations.

Czech Republic The Czech Republic is a Central European nation, with a population of 10,319,000 in 2008, spread over a territory 78867 km2. In 2008, the Czech Republic recorded a GDP of 217077 million US dollars, with a per capita of 21,036 US dollars (UNSD 2010). The Czech central state administration authority is responsible for regional policy. They are also responsible for policy areas that cover housing, tourism and spatial planning, all of which affect regional development. However, the nationwide strategic implementation of the


Soemadiredja 7

2004 “Czech Republic Strategy for Sustainable Development” is under the purview of the relevant local, regional or departmental body. Implementation funding is provided by national development programs, operational programs or the Structural Funds of the European Union. The regions, kraje, operated within a designated territory and are units with limited territorial self-administration. The kraje are responsible for coordinating the relevant territorial area development, sector development, designing internal development policy, defining programme implementation and defining regional development priorities. Municipalities are responsible for local development and defining supra-local programs as well as participating in regional programs.

Regional Development Strategy The Czech Republic developed a national strategy under the Ministry of Regional Development, based on Government Resolution 1242/2004, the “Czech Republic Strategy for Sustainable Development”. The regional development strategy is a policy to alleviate existing regional disparities through directing funds to optimisation of regional development and the policy to allocate funds for the removal of adverse social effects of economic downsizing of the structurally affected regions. It is not an egalitarian distribution of limited resources (Ministry for Regional Development 2006, 8). The Regional Development Strategy (RDS) priorities underlined for regional development and the choice of regions for concentrated state aid are based on economic and social indicators. The RDS promotes long-term sustainable development. This requires all “internal utilisable resources of municipalities, regions and the state and will use solitary sources of the Communities, particularly during the implementation of its cohesion policy” (Ministry for Regional Development 2006, 21) . It has three strategic objectives. The first is a development-oriented objective, in order to put the Czech Republic in line with developed European regions through economic, social and cultural achievements of regions. The disparity-oriented objective targets a decrease the large regional disparities. Instrumental objectives comprise of institutional and financial safeguards to maintain and allow for development, including co-financing and additionality principles of funding, rules of public aid, updating and creation of regional strategies, e-government at all levels of public administration, reduction of high public administration staff turnover, enhancing administrative capacities and simplifying the business sector‟s administrative measures.

Citizen participation project In 2004, a “Managing Cities for Economic Development and Citizen Satisfaction in the Slovak and Czech Republics‟ project engaging consultation of citizens by city staff on issues such as city transport improvements, business and investment attraction, adequate housing and regional economic development cooperation was implemented. It was a project by Iowa State University, together with cities in Slovak Republic and Czech Republic, in cooperation with the Slovak NGO Local Government Development Center (LGDC) and the Czech NGO Fund for the Assistance to the Local Administration (FALA), and other technical support organisations and the US Department of State‟s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs grant and the assistance Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee). Three Czech cities were involved in this project, Krnov in the Moravian-Silesian region of the country, Louny in the northwest, and Uherske Hradiste in the eastern part of south Moravia. The goal of the project was to expand government accountability, increase responsiveness to citizen demands and encourage communication with citizens for economic development. Krnov‟s project was an economic development strategic plan for 2003-2006. Louny‟s project was to transform a former military base into a new residential city ward. Uherske Hradiste


Soemadiredja 8

focused on a housing strategy in order to “solve the current housing situation of...inhabitants” (Bacova and Maney 2004, 9) . With this project, the focus of the citizen participation was during the decision-making stage of the policy-making process. The projects were based on the foundation project carried out by Iowa State University‟s “Citizen Initiated Performance Assessment” in the USA, where cities involved in CIPA formed “performance teams” composed of a majority of citizen representatives, and representatives from city staff and city councils. The teams were involved in the first policy-making steps. The performance teams established identification of citizen needs and concerns, the critical elements of a chosen service, and the identification and definition of the chosen service‟s measurable outcomes. The subsequent steps of the project involve government staff identifying the related activities to these measurable outcomes. They also identify outputs and measures, and then report to the performance teams. The teams with the departments work to “develop targets and goals, and formulate service agreements with the departments.” The departments then develop action plans for the goals. The developed “performance information and service agreements are...used for service evaluation, allocation of resources in a budgetary process, and reporting to the public, the city council, and managers” (Bacova and Maney 2004, 10). Accountability of the government was improved as “performance measurements” were also developed by the citizens with city and city councils, measurements that took into account the priorities and needs most relevant to the citizens themselves. The overall aim of the project was to harness citizen participation in order to improve public administration and public services. From the other perspective, normalizing citizen participation in development and policy-making would strengthen citizen trust in government and government services, and increase their interest in it, for the benefit of the public.

Lessons Learned While the focus of the state RDS in Czech Republic is upon the underdeveloped or developing regions of the nation, there is no active citizen stakeholder participation mechanism outlined within the document itself. The Regional Development Strategy orientates the regions toward development of new economic activities that do not involve agriculture, tourism, eco-tourism, small business and local resources. The focus is upon developing facilities and services which will improve the living conditions of the rural population, protecting territorial cultural and natural values, promoting of care for the landscape and preserving biodiversity. Within the RDS, only brief mention of civic participation is mentioned in the context of increasing regional social cohesion, in order to: encourage individual groups in the population to identify with their relevant territory, and, support excluded groups. This is considered a vital safeguard in order to improve quality of life in the region through the strategy. However, the projects under “Managing cities for Economic Development and Citizen Satisfaction” have shown that there are attempts being made within the Czech Republic that focuses on the importance of citizen stakeholder participation, directly addressing the intersections of good governance, local development policy-making and citizen participation.

Estonia Estonia is a northern European Baltic nation, with a population of 1,341,000 as of 2000, spread over an area of 45,227 km2. In 2008 Estonia recorded a GDP of 23,204,000 US dollars, with a per capita of 17,298.2 US dollars (UNSD 2010). The Estonian constitution defines local governments units as rural municipalities and towns. In addition, two types of local governments have large degrees of autonomy: local governments and cultural self-governments of ethnic minorities (Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN n.d.). The system of strategic regional planning implementation in the


Soemadiredja 9

country was improved in 2002, now operating under the Ministry of Finance, with the goal to link budget distribution and monitoring its expedient use with the planning of activities in the public sector. With a legal framework represented by the Local Government Act, it is a top-down approach. Local governments had their own independent budgets, “for which the bases and procedures for drafting shall be provided by law” (Estonia n.d.). At the local level, legislative bodies are comprised of a council and executive. Local authorities generally reside in small offices beside government administration. However, the local authority is the responsible body which provides services to citizens as the most immediate power representative in the vicinity. Prior to 2002 amendments, many local governments had previous experience in presenting regional development plans, due to a requirement in the early 1990s whereby a local development plan had to be established in order to receive recognition as a local authority. Despite this, these plans were of varying quality from region to region. Based on a study by the Tallinn University of Educational Sciences, “strategic planning for public administration have to have specific, achievable and measurable goals” (Rea-Soiver 2000).

Obstacles and Solutions Strategic regional planning at the local level faces many obstacles in the Estonian case. The Local Government Act requires citizen participation particularly before local councils may discuss the draft plans, but citizen engagement is lacking due to the lack of interest on the part of the citizens, despite the different mechanisms for stakeholder participation used, including brainstorming, youth essay competitions, public exhibition of plans. One popular medium underutilised by the local governments to encourage stakeholder, particularly citizen, participation was publishing of plans over the internet. Only a third of local governments used the internet, despite it being popular with the public due to cheap internet rates particularly in more urban areas. However, the amount of received proposals and feedback was low. Participatory and fiscal obstacles are also tied together. Local authorities‟ budgets are only able to sustain operation costs and therefore do not see future planning beneficial. 10 per cent of local authorities do not receive grants from the state budget, and the sum of money provided for these local authorities are up for debate. Thus, local authorities believe that the instability of state politics is an obstacle for them. Citizen legitimacy and support is also lacking due to the main view that plans are political documents comprising of political coalition promises, and partial to private interests. With each change of coalition, the local authority must make a new plan. There is political pressure and a lack of continuity. In addition, there is a need to involve specialists from private and non-profit organisations, answerable for different fields in addition to Local Government specialists. To combat the lack of continuity in development planning, now local authorities are required to ratify the local budget annually, and the local authorities are required to define the articles and sum of money on the sphere of activities. In this way, with a development plan as a base for the budgeting process, the financing of activities through the year should remain stable. Introducing macro-project development plans encourage long term project and programme stability. Thus, performance plans should be made an element of the public administration planning, as a key to strategic planning.

Lessons Learned Regional planning in Estonia comes from two levels of government: top-down legislation, as well as the local administrative initiatives to set out development plans for their area. The Estonian case highlights obstacles when a programme requires active participation and responses from many stakeholders. It highlights not only the need for increasing citizen stakeholder interest and feedback during the planning process of development plans by their local administration, but also the need to increase user-friendly mechanisms popular with the


Soemadiredja 10

public for this participation. Under the thematic activity of facilitating civil society partnership, the Estonia case, though focused on Tallinn‟s experience, and thus a large city, highlights the need for strengthening the capacity of the local staff (civil servants) in order to efficiently plan, manage and organise tasks to increase efficiency by delineating goals of the development plan into achievable and measureable smaller results. The development plans are necessary, according to the local authorities in Estonia, as they will result in an increase in local identity and a sense of perspective to the regional development.

India India covers 3,287,263 km2 of land, with an estimated population of 1,198,003,000 people as of 2009 and growing. In 2009 it claimed a GDP of 1287290 million US dollars as and in 2009 claimed it had a GPD per capita of 1074.5 US dollars (UNSD 2010). Despite this over, 69 per cent of the population relies on the rural economy for their livelihood, and in 2000 living on an annual GDP per capita of 174 US dollars. The national GDP of India relies heavily on the agricultural sector, with the share of agriculture 24 per cent of the GDP in 2000. The government, both central and regional, are therefore more sensitive and subject to greater scrutiny in political matters involving agriculture, agro-business and rural living. However, the bureaucratic decision-making nature of Indian government in regards to agriculture, remains, and agriculture negotiations in the world stage remain a top-down process within India. Despite this, the agro-based rural population holds a strong collective political power and often exercises their democratic use of this power.

Stakeholders in WTO negotiations Because of this importance on agriculture India had a strong stake on the World Trade Organization‟s agriculture negotiations in the early 2000s. In the run-up to these negotiations at the WTO, India‟s strong rural base voted out the ruling party from favour. The ruling party was the favourites at the time, the National Democratic Alliance. The reason for this was that the rural stakeholders to agriculture in India felt neglected and bypassed in India‟s economic liberalisation process. The 2001 WTO saw India‟s comprehensive negotiation proposal included a process of consultation with stakeholders who felt neglected and ignored by the previous government. The main federal agencies involved in the industry are the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the (MOCI) and the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Due to its international matter, WTO negotiations, another key federal agency was the Ministry of External Affairs, even though the mandate of all WTO-related issues was under the Trade Policy Division TPD) of the MOCI. These four bodies were the key federal stakeholders in the WTO negotiations. The Indian state governments are recognised as having significant stake in agriculture related matters. However during the initial Uruguay Round (UR) and pre-UR talks they were not involved. In these new rounds of negotiations, coming at a time when some state governments filing a Supreme Court case stating that the federal Government of India “had no authority to accept obligations arising out of the Agreement on Agriculture because of agriculture‟s status as a state subject” (Priyadarshi 2005), it was clear that there was a need to take into account and come to a consensus to support the various Indian state governments‟ agricultural issues. Non-state actors also having a major stake in the agriculture talks in the WTO were the industry associations, such as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). Like the state governments, these stakeholders were not consulted during the UR of talks. Academics and think tanks also were considered an important part of the negotiations that should have been, but were not,


Soemadiredja 11

involved in UR. Finally, the civil society of India, as lose and heterogenous groups of people felt that NGOs should have been invited into the UR consultation process, due to the many active NGOs available. In this round, the Government of India identified the main issues of the agricultural negotiations. There was an array of recommendations provided by experts and agricultural scientists. These academics in consultation contributed to the overall Indian proposal on agriculture by the inclusion of a „food security box‟. In the consultations with industry, they were heavily involved unlike during the UR. They provided feedback and lobbied their views to the government, despite being criticised as being in too much of agreement with many policy issues with the government. The two key ministries were also involved in inter-ministerial consultations, mainly due to their key differences of goals and targets. MOCI was mandated to increase India‟s share of global trade. MOA wanted assurance against threats to domestic production and the livelihoods of small farmers. At the state-level, the government initiated regional consultations to obtain a larger perspective of the agricultural issue in India‟s states, and elicit suggestions and recommendations in order to reach a consensus about India‟s position on WTO in relation to agriculture talks. All these negotiations and consultation of non-federal body stakeholders served as the basis for the Indian WTO agriculture proposal which reflects the concerns and suggestions raised during the consultation period. Despite these large scale consultations involving stakeholders from various non-state and non-federal state bodies, an expected reduction of hostility and reduction of distrust toward the WTO processes did not occur. In fact, it was the opposite. There was considerable resentment still on a significant portion of the representatives even after the fact.

Lessons Learned India had no alternative but to engage non-federal governmental and non-governmental bodies to work with the federal government agencies in order to formulate, prepare and present a coherent, cohesive national position on agriculture in order to be able to best negotiate in the WTO in favour of India‟s views. The policy was based on the intensive “cross-sectoral and inter-ministerial consultations”. Armed with a comprehensive proposal that reflected the non-federal government stakeholder views and perspectives presented India as a country with a sovereign democratic vision of its domestic agriculture and international trade. While it did not decrease the mistrust these non-state stakeholders had toward the WTO, these non-state actors provided an important role for India‟s bargaining abilities during the WTO.

Macedonia The Republic of Macedonia is located in south Eastern Europe, covering 25713km2 of land, which by July 2012 will reach an estimated population of 2,082,370. The GDP of the country in 2009 was estimated to be 20.3 billion US dollars, with a GDP per capita of 9,900 US dollars (The World Factbook 2009). The Government of Macedonia designed a Regional Economic Development (RED) plan for poverty reduction involving a tool that is called “Human Rights Based Approach” (HRBA) to comply with national and international norms and standards. The HBRA is integrated into current RED methodology and within the same structure, complementing the RED to include “express linkage to rights, accountability, empowerment and ownership, meaningful and active participation, non-discrimination” (Frech 2005).

Human Rights Based Approach to Sustainable Development The HRBA subsumes the concept of social mobilisation directly into the RED for Macedonia. For Macedonian government, this will be a tool to engage multiple demographic and socio-economic groups of stakeholders in the sustainable development process. In the early stages it had not yet been fully integrated and implemented through the local development


Soemadiredja 12

planning process, but the actions involved include institutionalising the representation of all stakeholders, including women, into planning committees. At the local level, not all stakeholders, the vulnerable and the poor have participated in the policy-planning world. Regional partnerships in Macedonia are encouraged as important aspects of the development, particularly if it reaches across municipal lines, both vertical and horizontal, and bridging the gap between the policy-makers and those stakeholders and local community members.

Obstacles and Solutions The complications of inclusive participation by non-governmental bodies means that there is an importance still on the right distribution of participant stakeholders in order for a more balanced and fair consultation. For strategic importance it is better to consider that economic development usually is more inclusive, and more inclusive. In order to obtain the best out of consultations, there is also a need to reach out beyond the initial participation networks. Therefore it is important that there are training programmes to build capacity and ensure continual knowledge development. Additionally, any projects developed out of these consultation Working Groups, and as such they must continually be kept in the implementation process and informed and allowed to access monitoring and accountability procedures in order to remain transparent and effective order.

Lessons Learned For Macedonia, the new participatory engagement of stakeholders is a new presentation in policy development making processes. It not only involves non-state actors, it also assists those non-state actors, institutions, social groups, HR and community facilitators in comprehensible jargon, in favour of further stakeholder participation mechanisms for development plans in future years.

Romania Romania is a country covering 238391 km2 with an estimated population in 2009 of 21275000 people. It reported a GDP of 161109 million US dollars in 2009 and a GDP per capita of 7572.8 US dollars in 2009. The community of Horezu in Romania was involved in field testing of a programme to increase the capacity of trainers from Central and Southeast European countries, particularly to facilitate participatory elaboration of local economic development strategies. Horezu had never embarked on participatory process of development prior to this project. The area had previously been an industrial processing center prior to 1990. However, there was a significant decrease in industrial activity. At the time of the project, there were only 7000 inhabitants of the community, and was a small and economically depressed community, with weak access to information and funds but high potential being a center of folk ceramics, with geographic benefits being a fruit growing agricultural community, animal breeding, wood processing and source for farming products and household utilities for neighbouring communities. It was to be chosen as a live laboratory for the EU capacity building project for participatory processes due in part to the active female vice mayor interested with NGO collaboration to begin the planning process within the community (Vasilache 2010).

Horezu Participation Process The process involved the community and so had to first begin with an endorsement for the project obtained from local community leaders and elected representatives. There was a need to build the trust between the stakeholders and the training facilitators, and a need to raise awareness of the project in the overall community. This was done with activities such


Soemadiredja 13

as youth contests with an awards ceremony revolving around sharing information regarding this participatory planning process, what it was, how it would be achieved and for what purposes. The core team was formed with officials and local leaders. The facilitators provided detailed training on Local Economic Development and participatory strategic planning. The training targeted stakeholders, in particular those in the local business community and the public. There was a period of data collection and solicitation and input from the stakeholders. Then a partnership group was formed to identify the main stakeholders. Forty people from public administration, agriculture and forestry, traditional crafts industry and tourism, and commerce and industry formed the partnership group. Experts from Bucharest were contracted to compile a situation assessment and SWOT analysis of the community. The summary of this situation assessment was presented at the Training Conference. The training conference participants then developed their vision of development in the region, divided into different themes and covered four main integrated objectives, and identified obstacles to their vision. This became the basis of the strategy development. The implementation of the strategy had to be approved by local council. There was further training for the local representatives in project development. EU grants that the community applied for were used to fund specific parts of the strategy, such as IT equipment to City Hall, and rehabilitation of a road which links Horezu to one of the poorest villages in the region that is mainly inhabited by Roma population.

Lessons Learned The benefits of this programme were that there was capacity training on leadership and management skills, designed for the representatives of the local community. This capacity training programmes included the participation from neighbouring communities. There was a facilitation to expand this programme to neighbouring communities, and an extension to the county level. It was judged that people tend to better understand the logic and advantages of participatory planning processes through actual involvement in all steps of the participatory planning process. The data collection and data analysis was based on broad stakeholder participation, benefiting from crowd sourced thinking. The facilitators were vital in maintaining enthusiasm and ensuring the group retains a methodical process, and the group think processes and the training conferences allowed knowledge and information sharing. There was a tapping of local experts and local knowledge while allowing to import new or needed key skills by involving university academics and students, expanded analysis deliberation through group think and conferencing.

Russia The Russian Federation stretches 17098240 km2. In 2009 there was an estimated population of 140,874,000 people. The national GDP in 2009 was 1230720 million US dollars, and a GDP per capita of the year 2009 was 8736.4 US dollars. Due to the sprawling land mass the country is located on, not all citizens benefit equally. Therefore, for Russia, enterprises and industry are relied upon, particularly on Sakhalin Island, one of the most remote from Moscow, the capital, in the Northeast Pacific.

Participatory Process in Private Sector The Shakalin Energy Investment Company (SEIC), is heavily invested in the Sakhalin II, the oil and gas offsore and onshore development process. They have faced some hostility in their capacity as a company in this region: there were protests against all oil and gas operations on this island. In this area, there are four groups of indigenous peoples; the


Soemadiredja 14

Nivkhi, the Ulita, the Evenki and some Nanai, totalling around 3,500 at the time of the project‟s start. In order for their company to improve their relationship with the indigenous people, and the locals, as well as to comply with policies of potential lenders, such as the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the SEIC developed the Sustainable Indigenous Minorities Development Plan (SIMDP). There were two main goals for this project. The first objective was to mitigate impacts of the SEIC activities on Sakhalin II on the indigenous peoples. The second objective was to provide a framework to deliver socio-economic benefits to the indigenous communities. The important mechanism for this project was the aspect of participatory consultation by the stakeholders, the indigenous, in these objectives. The process involved three consultation rounds, the first of which was focused on ascertaining priorities and benefits-sharing as well as collecting information from the indigenous stakeholders for SEIC‟s mitigation planning. The community process involved 200 people, 5 per cent of the entire population of indigenous people on the island. A Working Group was formed of SEIC staff, consultants, local government representatives and the Indigenous Minorities People Council. This group provided guidance toward the SEIC plan. The SEIC also took into consideration the logistics of participation in consultation seriously, in order to ensure participation and collaboration. Transportation was arranged, elderly or young members of the community were accompanied home. The venue for these public consultations also had to be appropriate for the time of year, the climate, and the situation, and tended to be centrally acceptable. The timing of the meetings were also crucial, timed to the end of the fishing day.

Lessons Learned These consultation sessions not only provided a space for all the stakeholders to voice suggestions and reactions to the SIMDP. It was also a space where the people were expressed to vocalise their views on issues that may not seem related to the SIMDP. However, the process of consultation and involvement of all sectors on Sakhalin, from the indigenous members of the community to the regional khokimiyats, is also seen as way to foster a sense of ownership into this plan. An important lesson to pay close attention to is the importance that logistical support is given to the participants when they are requested to participate in consultation. If it is inconvenient, they will not participate. The more convenient it becomes on the part of the consulted party, the more there will be active stakeholder participation and a desire to attend and participate.

Serbia Serbia is a country covering 88361 km2 with an estimated population in 2009 of 9850000 people. It reported a 2009 GDP of 41654 million US dollars with a GDP per capita of 5611.7 in 2009. The municipality of Ada is a local authority that embarked on a municipal development strategy initiative. The municipality is located in the North of the Republic, is in the center of Vojvodina, an autonomous region on the right bank of the Tisa. It covers an area of 229 km2 and has a population of 19,000 people. It has transport links to the EU border, good accessibility and is located on extremely fertile land. It has no external or functional influences outside of the border of the municipality. The funds were sources from various sources, including the autonomous provincial funds, local community funds, foreign sources such as EU funds, and national funds. 22 million Euros were used to realise projects from July 2006 to June 2009 (Koš, Šećerov and Čolić 2010).


Soemadiredja 15

“With Knowledge and Heart for a Successful Municipality” In 2004, a Municipality development strategy was developed by a citizen group under the banner of “With Knowledge and Heart for a Successful Municipality”. The citizen group formed a council, which explained the purpose of their existence and their right as representatives of the citizens of the municipality. They recognised key obstacles to development, the first being that the lack of development itself was a key obstacle, and the necessity to formulate vision of development strategy and the lack of one as another key obstacle. They set out to formulate the development strategy through formulation of context analysis. The context analysis was done over the course of eight months from January 2005, and a strategy draft was prepared by December 2005, and available for public consumption. The draft was presented and discussed with citizens at public hearings and forums. Inputs from the citizens were incorporated, and external experts advised on technical aspects and presentation. The plan was adopted on June 2006. The formulation methodology involved SWOT analysis, visioning, goal setting and defining sectoral objectives and priority projects. The context analysis provided an objective account of demographics, capacity, local situations. Agricultural land development, metal and textile industry and tourism, proximity of the Ada municipality to the EU, qualified personnel and inventive self government were all identified as the main strengths of the municipality. Poor traffic connections, high unemployment, negative demographic trends, unsuccessful privatisation and poor infrastructure were identified as weaknesses of the municipality.

Partnerships An operational team conducted context analysis, covering issues and topics of population and demographics; economics; local self government; public companies; education, health and culture; communal services; tourism and environment; pensioners; urban planning and cadastre; and, media. A household survey was conduction to poll public opinion, with 425 households surveyed between 9 and 15th of March 2005, conducted by an expert team and nine interviewers. Later, other partners joined the context analysis team to formulate the context analysis: public companies, sub municipalities, schools, business entities, healthcare institutions, sports and cultural organisations, NGOs, religious groups and social welfare institutions, employment groups and statistics and geodetic institutions. A Poverty Reduction office engaging in social policy and strategic planning, adult education, inclusion of Roma children, and public works was established. The vision for the strategy was that economic development of the municipality with a fully established communal infrastructure and developed human resources. 42 priority projects were identified in seven different thematic areas. The formulation did not include development measures, instruments or policies but had implementation framework.

Lessons Learned The Ada Municipality Development strategy was a successful model to stimulate municipal capacity, initiate branding of the municipality and establish a coherent development and municipal profile. The key to their success was the local ownership of the development strategy. The desire to formulate the municipal development plans were not stimulated by foreign agents, but directly from the municipal citizens, with assistance of some foreign (regional, national, foreign) assistance, but with the necessary strength from local led initiative and will. Additionally, the participatory processes tapped local expertise, experience and knowledge.


Soemadiredja 16

Slovak Republic

Slovakia, an Eastern European country covering 49035 km2, in 2008 had a population of 5,400,000. The GDP of the country in 2008 was 94,957,000 US dollars, with a GDP per capita of 17,144.1 US dollars. The main goals of the Slovak Republic Development Strategy are sustainable development in a knowledge based society. In relation to this at the regional levels, the National Plan of Regional Development (NPRD) outlines the relevant government bodies in charge of the Regional Development of Slovak Republic, a document published in 2001, forecasting the goals of sustainable development in line with EU policies for the ascension to the EU. Slovakia‟s various regions exhibit significant differences in levels of regional economic development. In the periphery regions, there are less developed areas that the central government would like to bring up to an EU average standard and some areas are categorised by the government as having an economic level that is „permanently lagging behind‟. Notably, the district formerly known as Middle Spiš, divided among three districts newly created 1996 and two regional self-governments, has a high level of unemployment at 26 per cent. A significant minority of the population is the Roma population, which has a high level of unemployment and whom are fully dependent on social welfare. Other local government areas are facing such problems such as high unemployment, absence of investment and capital, redevelopment and reconstruction problems and absence of means for development projects. Regions facing such problems are primary targets of development plans such as those outlined in the NPRD, as well as government-international development organisation projects such as the UNDP-assisted “Your Spiš” project, and government-institution development projects such as the “Citizen Participation Project”.

National Plan of Regional Development The administration implementation system of the regional policy falls under the purview of the Vice Prime Minister. The Council of Slovak Government for Regional Policy, with the Vice Prime Minister‟s lead, addresses strategy, coordination, consultancy, initiative for regional policy and coordination of structural instruments (Karasz, Hrivnák and al 2001, 139). The Ministry of Construction and Regional Development is the central body for regional development. The Regional Operation Programs (ROP) and Sectoral Operation Programs (SOP) are the managing bodies for the NPRD, whereby the individual ROPs coordinate all activity of the state government bodies and territorial self-governing bodies if they are involved in the implementation of NPRD. Further to this, the evaluation of progress and fulfilment of the ROPs are done by the ROPs and SOPs. The funding mechanisms for regional development are also laid out in the National Plan of Regional Development, which involve both public resources and EU resources. A National Authorised Officer is placed in charge of EU funds. Monitoring and evaluation relying upon the principles of decentralisation, partnership, programming and coordination, monitored by the National Monitoring Committee (NMC) and the Regional Managing and Monitoring Committee (RMMC). Outlined within the Slovak Republic National Plan of Regional Development are targets where there are specific mechanisms that require citizen participation in order to fulfil the NPRD objectives. For objective of stopping economic and social decline in the eastern part of the country, citizen participation is a support measure, particularly under objectives of cultivating human potential and effective utilisation of labour resources. Other specific targets involving and requiring the need for citizen participation is the increased promotion of regional citizen initiatives, support of marginalized groups (Karasz, Hrivnák and al 2001, 118-119).


Soemadiredja 17

The NPRD also highlights the need for Slovak Republic citizens‟ active participation and cooperation, and increasing the interest of the population in public matters. Therefore, introduction of enhancement and educational forms geared toward increasing civil and legal awareness and citizens‟ organisations (Karasz, Hrivnák and al 2001, 118).

UNDP’s “Your Spiš” A UNDP assisted social mobilisation programme in Slovakia was built on principles of partnership, participation and ownership, to establish a coalition between national and local governments and civil society groups for the integration of Roma into political and economic systems. The programme was directly addressing the need to foster local development through improvement of social and human capital, as well as empowering disadvantaged groups, the Roma and other members of society, to contribute (UNDP Regional Support Center 2002). The aims of the programme was integration of vulnerable and minority groups, not limited to the Roma population, to reach all inhabitants of participating municipalities. The programme encourages involvement of people in their own development plans, from priority and needs identification, implementation and monitoring processes. Community activists employed by the programme assists the local populations in the partner communities to establish community-based organisations (CBOs) to share and address community and local development concerns, through micro-grants. Some initiatives were established in order to encourage economic initiatives, through micro-loans. In the terms of the reach of the project, it could be evaluated from two different angles: direct beneficiaries groups and groups that were beneficiaries but not included in main target. Micro-credit and micro-grant schemes were introduced. Micro-credits were available for initiatives that would generate income and benefits for private businesses or initiatives that benefit part of the community, such as small businesses. Micro-grants were available for projects that would benefit the entire local community. Micro-grants were more popular than micro-credits, and the project received 284 grant applications. The UNDP project faced many obstacles. Not all Community Development Centres achieved success in attracting participation from non-Roma population. This stemmed from the fact that the CDCs were not well-advertised to show that it was not solely focused on addressing and providing assistance to the Roma population, but rather the vulnerable groups in society as well as others who wished to participate in community development (Radičová, Salner and Hurrle 2005). Funding for the CDC was low, and thereby unsustainable. Initially, the CDCs were meant to become independent and self-sufficient from the income generated by the CBOs and businesses being loaned money by the grant programmes, but with the requirement that the businesses would have a social responsibility factor of a broad social base which would assist vulnerable groups in society or be involved in local development. Because not many people were applying for such loans, there was an inability to benefit to additional income for sustaining Your Spiš programme. Another issue encountered were the variable performances of the individual CDCs. These results were directly contingent upon the capacity of the individual Community Activist who is tasked with operating the particular CDC. Strategies were not made to tie the strategies and initiatives and projects in local development, and the projects were not paralleled with advocacy efforts in central levels of government. The social assistance system was a problem to try to stimulate job creation and micro-enterprise development. Social benefits acted as a discouraging factor for the long-term unemployed to search for jobs or start small enterprises. Also the lack of appropriate


Soemadiredja 18

central state legislation and policies provided bleak outlooks for the long-term project outcomes.

Citizen Participation Project Iowa State University and six cities in Slovak Republic and Czech Republic worked in cooperation with the Slovak NGO Local Government Development Center (LGDC) and the Czech NGO Fund for the Assistance to Local Administration (FALA), with the help of other technical support organisations, as well as the US Department of State‟s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs grant and the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee), in 2004, on a project to engage citizen consultation by city employees on important public issues such as city transport, business and investment attraction, housing, and regional economic development cooperation. Called the, “Managing Cities for Economic Development and Citizen Satisfaction”, the separate projects were aimed at strengthening local and regional policy making processes and increase economic development through active citizen participation engagement. There were three Slovak cities chosen to participate in the projects. Lucenec, situated in the south of central Slovakia, close to the Hungarian border focused on bringing in investment from within and without in one of the most isolated and poor regions of Slovak Republic. Senica, near the Czech border, in the southwest of the Republic had a project which focused on the use of information technology to collect citizen input in economic development planning. Piestany in the southwest of the country had a project that involved citizen input in process of building an effective and efficient transportation service system. This process involved community participation by engaging citizens in the decision-making stage of the policy-making process. The projects in Slovak Republic were based on a foundation project involving Iowa State University‟s “Citizen Initiated Performance Assessment” in the USA, where municipal citizens formed “performance teams” composed of a majority of citizen representatives alongside representatives from city staff and city councils. These teams identified citizen needs and concerns, critical elements of a chosen service focus, and identification and definition of the service‟s measurable outcomes. The main aims of the project were to improve accountability of governments, through performance measurements which were developed in part by participating citizens. Harnessing citizen participation to improve public administration and public services, normalizing citizen participation in development and policy-making to increase and strengthen citizen trust in government and government services, increase citizen interest in public administration and regional and local development, for the overall benefit of the public.

Lessons Learned For the Slovak Republic, sustainable development of underdeveloped regions and regions permanently lagging behind is a key aim of the country‟s development strategy. Increasing the capacities of local governments and authorities as well as increasing the local citizen‟s interest and participation in public activities and regional development remains an important component of such sustainable development particularly in these regions. A key point that can be taken from the Slovakia “Your Spiš” development project is that while participatory development projects could be beneficial at the local level, there is a need for a support from the senior levels of government: “Most of the expectations in terms of impact on national policy and capacity have not been realised” (Radičová, Salner and Hurrle 2005). If the local level development plan is not tied into the senior level development plan there will be a lack of efficiency and discernible results and will be less sustainable. However, the three cities citizen participation projects in the Slovak Republic show that there are also other attempts at community-driven decision-making municipal development plans, the results of which have yet to be communicated.


Soemadiredja 19

Conclusion The requirements for local and regional development involve the need for more knowledge and information sharing, more accurate data collection and analysis, and more innovation and creativity to ensure that development plans move from the planning stage to the implementation, and to ensure truly sustainable development. It is clear that a key to this is to involve all the stakeholders, not only those involved in sources of funding and the traditional hierarchical public administration and civil servant representatives, but non-governmental stakeholders. These not only include the important business and industry sector actors and decision-makers, but representatives from the local communities, interest groups and non-governmental organisations. The importance of engaging the non-governmental stakeholders involve not only the need to maintain sustainability in development processes and broader crowd- and citizen-sourced innovative solutions for development, but also to improve good governance processes in the local, municipal, regional and rural public administration. Stakeholder participation demands and develops good governance, transparency and increased trust and interest in public sector work. Participatory processes vary from place to place depending on the needs of the particular development project, however it is outlined from the main success stories, as well as the failures, in the international experience, is that there needs to be a community based ownership of the development, a community-driven leadership of the development strategy, or the tapping of local community knowledge and the permission and maintained enthusiasm of the local community. This involves the non-governmental stakeholders in the policy planning stages through to the implementation and evaluation stages. The difficulties in this process are many. Some broader development goals implemented from the top-down have no particular outlined or chosen mechanisms for local stakeholder engagement, requiring local leaders and public administration officers to develop and engage their own methods based on their direct knowledge of the communities they serve, both a potential obstacle and a potential benefit. Then there is the need to ensure that non-governmental stakeholders do not feel marginalised or excluded from the decision-making processes. In some cases, the process for non-governmental stakeholder engagement is underway, yet there is a lack of interest. In these cases, there would be an important need to improve trust by the local stakeholders to the public administration and local government institutions to encourage the opposite of apathy in the citizenry and a community-wide desire to participate, through awareness campaigns, and long-term trust building processes. Groups that are consulted must also understand why and how their contributions will be reflected in the overall processes and the reasons for non inclusion of some of their suggestions and opinions. All of these international experiences highlight the need for local stakeholders to be involved in the development processes in order to maintain sustainability. The experiences and locations were varied, but there are basic processes and timeline that all the projects follow for stakeholder consultation and participation, which can be adjusted according to each project and according to the main goals and aims. For Uzbekistan and others, this means there is no one-size fits all method of involving non-governmental stakeholders, and that each project and community requires different mechanisms to engage the stakeholders into leadership and ownership of the development strategies, and involves innovation on the part of the non-governmental and governmental stakeholders in order to work towards the common goal of local, municipal, rural and regional development.


Soemadiredja 20

Bibliography Abdelhalim, Khaled, and Mohammad Abou Samra. Participatory Upgrading of Informal Areas: Decision-makers Guide for Action. Cairo: GTZ Participatory Development Programme in Urban Areas (PDP) in Egypt, 2010. Bacova, Magareta, and Ardith Maney. “Strengthening policymaking and community economic development through citizen participation: Evidence from Slovak and Czech cities.” NISPAcee Annual Conference, Central and Eastern European Countries Inside and Outside the European Union: Avoiding a New Divide. Lithuania, 2004. Berkshire Advisors, Inc. Srategic Planning for Local Governments. Berkshire Advisors, Inc, 22. Dow, Jocely, Vanda Radzik, and Duncan Macqueen. Independent Review of the Staeholder Consultation Process for Guyana's Low Carbon Development Strategy. IIED, 2009. Estonia. “Constitution of the Republic of Estonia.” Frech, Renate. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Regional Development. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights, 2005. Gearhart, David. UNDP/Uzbekistan Query: Inclusion of Non-Government Stakeholders in the Decision-Making Process and Consultations, for Regional Development. Washington DC: ABA-UNDP International Legal Resource Center (ILRC), 2011. Government of Jamaica. Consultation Code of Practice for the Public Sector. Kingston: Cabinet Ministers of Jamaica. IFC. Stakeholder Engagement Part One: Stakeholder Consultation. Washington DC: IFC. Karasz, Pavol, Luboš Hrivnák, and et al. National Plan of the Regional Development of the Slovak Republic. Bratislava: Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic, 2001. Koš, Šandor, Velimir Šederov, and Ratka Čolid. “Local Ownership: A Cornerstone of Successful Planning.” In Strategic Planning for Local Development: Case Studies from Small and Mid-Sized European Cities, edited by Ligia Ramirez and Gulelat Kebede, 11-24. Belgrade: UN-Habitat SIRP-Belgrade, 2010. Ministry for Regional Development. Regional Development Strategy of the Czech Republic (Summary). Prague: Ministry for Regional Development, 2006. Närep, Karin, and Viola Rea-Soiver. Strategic planning process on central and local level performance plans as the element of the strategic planning in the public administration in Estonia. Tallinn: Tallinn University of Educational Sciences. National Regional Development Strategy. Sofia: Republic of Bulgaria, 2005. National Strategy of Regional Development. Working Paper, Chisinau: EU RDIB, 2007. Permanent Mission of Estonia to the UN. Estonia at a Glance. http://www.un.estemb.org/estonia (accessed October 31, 2011).


Soemadiredja 21

Priyadarshi, Shishir. “Decision-Making Processes in India: The Case of the Agriculture Negotiations.” In MANAGING THE CHALLENGES OF WTO PARTICIPATION, edited by Peter Gallagher, Patrick Low and Andrew L. Stoler. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Radičová, Iveta, Andrej Salner, and Jakob Hurrle. Sustainable community development in middle Spis. Ex-Post Evaluation and Sustainability Assessment, UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre, 2005. Ramirez, Ligia, and Gulelat Kebede, . Strategic Planning for Local Development. Belgrade: UN-Habitat SIRP-Belgrade, 2010. Rea-Soiver, Viola. “The Planning of social-economical development and the exertion on management in local authority. Bachelor thesis, Department of Government.” Tallinn: Tallinn University of Educational Sciences, 2000. Sen, Sevaly. “Involving Stakeholders in Aquaculture.” In Aquaculture in the Third Millenium, by R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.E. Arthur, 471. Bangkok: Food and Agriculture Organization, 2000. The World Factbook. Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2009. UNDP Regional Support Center. How to Make Local Development Work. Policy Paper, Bratislava: UNDP, 2002. UNHABITAT. Promoting Local Economic Development Strategic Planning Volume 1: Quick Guide. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2005. UNSD. UNData. 2010. http://data.un.org. Vasilache, Ana. “Common Challenges, Common Solutions: The Experience of Participatory Planning Processes in Romania.” In Strategic Planning for Local Development: Case Studies from Small and Mid-Sized European Cities, edited by Ligia Ramirez and Gulelat Kebede, 25-40. Belgrade: UN-Habitat SIRP-Belgrade, 2010.

Сравнительный обзор участия неправительственных...

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Сравнительный обзор участия неправительственных...