Upload
shon-taylor
View
217
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Experience of Moldova in
implementing structural reforms
Eugen OsmochescuHead, RIA Secretariat
Geneva, 23 October 2007
Content Priorities Approach Strategy Legal Framework Institutional Framework Phases of Implementation Results after 3 Phases Enacting the Guillotine Lessons Learned Next Measures Lessons Learned
Priorities in Policy and Regulatory Reform
Rendering paid services for
entrepreneurs
Improvement of the activities of controlling/
inspection organizations
Regulatory Reform
Fiscal & Accounting Reporting
through a simplified fiscal system
Optimization of authorization
system at the start-up stage
of business
Strategy in Policy & Regulatory Reform
Lobbying and Advocacy
Regional Level
National level
Task/Activities Main tools
Implementation of Guillotine Law & RIA
National Working Group(NWG)
Establishment of RWGs, and OSSs
TA to MET, NWG and RWGs
Development of RIAModule
Regional Working Groups(RWGs)
Best inter. practice, Training
Workshops, roundtables, int. forum
Legal Framework (I)
17 February 2004Governmental Decision on Reform of State Regulation of Entrepreneurship Activity
The Concept of Reform has been approved. Inter-ministerial Commission created as a
political body to coordinate the Reform. The National Working Group (NWG) created as a
working entity to propose to the Inter-ministerial Commission modification to the legal framework on regulating entrepreneurship activity.
Legal Framework (II)16 December 2004 Law on reviewing and streamlining
the normative regulatory framework for business activity (Guillotine Law I) passed by the Parliament of Moldova by a near unanimous vote including the opposition.
NB Under the Guillotine Law did not fall laws and decisions of the Parliament
Institutional Framework
State Commission on Regulatory Reform;
National Working Group on Regulatory Reform (NWG);
Secretariat of the NWG (based on a Memorandum signed between MoE&T and USAID BIZPRO/Moldova, and as of July 3, 2006 overtaken by the WB Competitiveness Enhancement Project);
9 Regional Working Groups.
Phases of Implementation
Phase I: 7 February -22 March 2005
Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 Phase III: 22 June – 22 July 2005
Phase I: 7 February -22 March 2005
All public authorities revise official acts in respective field of activity.
Based on the revision, each authority elaborates a List of official acts.
The List of official acts and every single official act are presented to the NWG and its Secretariat
Each official act is presented with an informative note
Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 (I)
Assessment by the NWG of official acts and informative notes presented by public authorities;
NWG takes the decision to include or not include the official acts into the Registry;
Appeals by the public authorities at the State Commission.
Phase II: 22 March – 22 June 2005 (II)
9 sub-groups of the NWG created; 12 independent expert consultants
hired; 15 sessions scheduled for the
NWG.
Phase III: 22 June – 22 July 2005
Public access to the elaboration of the final version of the Registry;
Elaboration and approval of the final version of the Registry;
Presentation of the draft Registry to the Government;
Abrogation of official acts not included in the Registry.
Results after 3 phases
1130 regulations have been revised>- 426 regulations shall be included in
the Registry;- 285 regulations shall be amended;
and- 99 regulations shall be discarded;- Other considered not to regulate
entrepreneurial activity.
Enacting Guillotine I (I) Government Decision – 30 August 2005
Approving the Nomenclature of Authorizations, Permits and Certificates Issued by Central Public Authorities and Subordinated Units for Entrepreneurial Activity of Physical and Legal Persons
Results: - from around 400 permits only 128 remained, of
which only 47 are issued against charge (reference to a law or international agreement Moldova is part of);
- have to be issued within 10 days (unless otherwise provided by a law or international agreement).
Enacting Guillotine I (II) Government Decision – 3 October 2005
Approving the Registry of formal acts regulating business activity
Results: List # 1 – Acts to be included in the Registry; List # 2 – Abrogated Acts; List # 3 – Acts proposed to be abrogated by
independent agencies; List # 4 – Acts to be modified and published in the
Official Gazette (authorities have to present to the NWG modifications to the respective acts within a 3 months period. In case if it is not done, unmodified acts will be abrogated as of January 1, 2006).
Lessons Learned (I) Underestimation of potential number of acts to be
revised Inclusion for revision and assessment of local public
authorities’ acts. In this case the work load is not real taking into account 6 months and available financial and human recourses
Lack of real communication strategy of the central level with local levels, where most of business in need is and
Low quality involvement in the exercise of private sector representatives from the capital city where 70% of business is, except foreign investors
Lack of financial and human resources from the side of the Government, fact leading to a need of foreign TA
Lessons Learned (II) Part of the members of the NWG did not took
the exercise in serous Old mind set in case of most ministries. It took
a while to “educate” them which led to time loosing and low quality of the interaction between the ministries and NWG, which resulted on extra work load for TA
An education/communication/branding campaign needed before the technical process starts, so that ministries would take more serous the obligations inserted in the law
Next Measures Law on Basic Principles Regulating
Entrepreneurial Activity (11 August 2006)
- Guillotine of laws- Most regulations to be adopted by law- Market criteria for assessment- RIA Medium Term Strategy for Regulatory
Reform – 2006/2009 RIA Methodology SMEs Strategy
Law on Basic Principles Regulating Entrepreneurial Activity
The Law sets the following principles: Predictability of regulations; Transparency in decision-making and
regulation; Regulatory Impact Assessment; Material and procedural regulations on
business start up, business development, and business close up only by laws;
Proportionality.
Phases of Implementation
Phase I: 11 Aug. -26 Nov. 2006 Phase II: 26 Nov. 2006 – 26 Feb.
2007 Phase III: 26 Feb. – 26 May 2007 Phase IV: until 30 Nov. 2007
Phase I: 11 Aug. -26 Nov. 2006
Public authorities develop draft modifications and amendments to the normative acts in their area of activity.
Authorities submit to the Commission/NWG/RIA Secretariat drafts and information notes for review, and concomitantly present to the Parliament a report on the results of review of normative acts at the respective stage.
Phase II: 26 Nov. 2006 – 26 Feb. 2007
State Commission examine the drafts and submit its review to the authorities.
State Commission presents to the Parliament a report on its review of normative acts.
Phase III: 26 Feb. – 26 May 2007
Authorities develop, based on the State Commission’s review, the final draft and information notes, and adopt or submit them for adoption in accordance with the law.
Phase IV: until 30 Nov. 2007
Revision by the Parliament, and adoption of modifications as well as abrogation
Lessons Learned (I)
Low quality involvement in the exercise of private sector representatives, except foreign investors;
Lack of financial and human resources from the side of the Government, fact leading to a need of foreign TA;
Lessons Learned (II) Old mind set in case of most ministries. It
took a while to “educate” them which led to time loosing and low quality of the interaction between the ministries and NWG, which resulted on extra work load for TA
An education/communication/branding campaign needed before the technical process starts, so that ministries would take more serous the obligations inserted in the law