DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Review of Slovenia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Special Review of Slovenia SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA This special review of the development co-operation policies and programme of Slovenia was conducted at the request of Slovenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and undertaken with the agreement of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Two DAC members, Finland and Switzerland, served as examiners for the special review which took place from June to December 2011. The special review was launched at a seminar in Ljubljana organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 18 April 2012. SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA FOREWORD The OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) welcomes the contribution of all providers of development co-operation resources and expertise towards the common goal of reducing global poverty and increasing sustainable and inclusive economic growth. The DAC hopes to forge new and mutually beneficial relationships with these new partners in international development co-operation. Among the range of bilateral providers of development co-operation, priority partners for the DAC include OECD members that have not joined the Committee and European Union member states that joined the Union after 2002 (sometimes known as the “EU 12”). The DAC aims to share lessons and views on development co-operation with these countries, learn from their development experiences, share expertise on aid management and statistics, increase information exchange regarding development co-operation activities and financial flows and engage in policy dialogue with them. In recent years, non-DAC OECD members and EU 12 countries have been increasing their interest in the work of the DAC, particularly in view of some ambitious commitments to scale up their development co-operation. Slovenia has participated in several DAC meetings since 2008, including its High-Level and Senior-Level Meetings. It has reported its official development assistance (ODA) to the OECD since 2005. Slovenia has also sought to learn from the good practices of DAC members and, in 2010, participated as an observer in the DAC Peer Review of Portugal. In November 2010, Slovenia approached the OECD with a request for a special review. These special reviews draw on the DAC Peer Review methodology and provide critical, helpful and respectful insights to support a country’s own efforts to strengthen its development co-operation programme and systems, including its role and obligations as a member state of the European Union. Special reviews also provide an opportunity for the DAC to learn from the perspectives and experience of providers of development co-operation beyond its own membership. The special review of Slovenia took place from June to December 2011. It included a visit to Ljubljana by the special review team in September 2011 for discussions with key stakeholders. The special review team comprised representatives of two DAC members - Finland and Switzerland - and staff of the OECD’s Development Co-operation Directorate. This report presents the main findings from the special review, including a set of recommendations for further improvement. While the Slovenian authorities have reviewed the report for factual accuracy, the findings and recommendations remain those of the special review team. 1 SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA ACRONYMS CMSR* Centre for International Co-operation and Development DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD) EU European Union GDP Gross domestic product GNI Gross national income MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs NGO Non-governmental organisation ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SCA Slovenian Court of Auditors * Acronym in original language. Signs used: EUR Euro USD United States Dollar Notes on data used: Slight discrepancies are due to rounding. Exchange rates (EUR per USD): 2007 2008 2009 2010 0.7305 0.6933 0.7181 0.7550 2 SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA SLOVENIA’S AID AT A GLANCE SLOVENIA Gross bilateral ODA, 2009-2010 average, unless otherwise shown Change 2009 2010 2009/2010 NET ODA By income group (USD mn) Current (USD m) 71 59 -17.8 Constant (USD m) 71 61 -14.0 0.9 0.2 In Euro (million) 51 44 -13.6 ODA/GNI 0.15 0.13 Bilateral Share 35% 38% 5.7 LDCs 10.2 Other low-income Lower middle-income TOP TEN RECIPIENTS OF GROSS ODA Upper middle-income USD million Unallocated 1 Croatia 3.6 2 States Ex-Yugoslavia 2.9 3 Bosnia-Herzegovina 1.6 4 Montenegro 1.5 6.7 5 Serbia 1.4 6 Kosovo 1.4 7 Macedonia, FYR 1.3 8 Albania 0.4 By region (USD mn) 9 Afghanistan 0.3 10 Palestinian Adm. Areas 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.6 Sub-Saharan Africa 0.5 0.3 South and Central Asia 7.3 Other Asia and Oceania Middle East and North Africa Latin America and Caribbean Europe Source: DAC database, OECD. 14.5 Unspecified 3 SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AND ORIENTATIONS ................................................... 8 Consolidating Slovenia’s place as a donor .................................................................................................. 8 The importance of reforming the legal foundations ..................................................................................... 9 Sharpening the strategic direction should be a priority ................................................................................ 9 Clarifying the difference between humanitarian assistance and development co-operation ..................... 11 Continuing to build public awareness and support .................................................................................... 12 Making Slovenia’s development co-operation more effective .................................................................. 13 Taking account of the impact of public policies on developing countries ................................................. 13 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2 ODA CHANNELS, VOLUMES AND ALLOCATIONS ................................................ 15 ODA has been growing but is no longer on track to reach agreed targets ................................................. 15 The budgeting process provides a good basis for development co-operation............................................ 16 Multilateral aid is the mainstay of Slovenia’s ODA .................................................................................. 17 Focusing geographically and using different channels in different regions............................................... 17 Bilateral ODA is fragmented and implemented by a fixed group of partners ........................................... 18 Slovenia can build on its good practices in providing humanitarian assistance ........................................ 20 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER 3 ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 23 Slovenia is building a co-ordinated structure that should help it to deliver better aid ............................... 23 The MFA needs to manage important human resource challenges ........................................................... 24 The current business model is atomised and generates high transaction costs .......................................... 25 Slovenia needs a system for monitoring performance, learning and knowledge management ................. 27 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................ 30 Tables Table 1. How the Slovenian government works with key implementing partners for bilateral ODA .......... 25 Figures Figure 1. ODA volume as a per cent of gni: not on track to meet the 2015 target ........................................ 15 Figure 2. Bilateral and multilateral ODA in 2010 ......................................................................................... 17 Figure 3. Slovenian bilateral ODA by region in 2010: a focus on Europe .................................................... 18 Figure 4. Main partners involved in implementing the government action plan in 2010 .............................. 19 Figure 5. Humanitarian aid: Slovenia uses a broader definition than the DAC ............................................ 21 Figure 6. How different parts of the system interact ..................................................................................... 24 Figure 7. The two way relationship between high-level goals and objectives of individual activities ......... 28 Figure 8. Key norms and standards for evaluating development co-operation ............................................. 29 Boxes Box 1. Reforming scholarship programmes: Lessons from DAC members' experience .............................. 20 Box 2. Structuring partnerships with NGOs .................................................................................................. 27 Box 3. Foundations of results-based management ........................................................................................ 28 4 SPECIAL REVIEW OF SLOVENIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kazakhstan ©Who
    WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION in KAZAKHSTAN ©WHO Welcome from the Who we are Regional Director The World Health Organization (WHO) is the global authority on public health within the United Nations. Welcome to WHO. Health is our most Founded in 1948, we collaborate with the governments precious asset. WHO’s goal is to ensure of 194 Member States to ensure the highest attainable better health for everyone, everywhere. level of health for all. Currently, more than 7000 people We touch people’s lives – making sure work in 150 country offices, 6 regional offices and at the the air we breathe, and the food and headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The Organization’s water we consume is safe; ensuring work is guided by the principle that health is a human right, all have access to effective health and we seek to extend universal health coverage, protect systems; safeguarding the quality of people from health emergencies, and ensure that all medicines and vaccines; combatting people enjoy better health and well-being. diseases and protecting people from health threats. WHO works Kazakhstan is part of the WHO European Region, which with governments, organizations, comprises 53 countries: this Region covers a vast communities and individuals to promote geographical area reaching from the Atlantic to the Pacific health throughout our lives. We all oceans. WHO staff in the Region are public health, scientific benefit socially, economically and and technical experts, based in the Regional Office in environmentally from a world that Copenhagen, Denmark, in five technical centres and seeks health for all and nowhere is our in country offices in 30 Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • Sdgs and the UK Higher Education Sector
    The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and the UK Higher Education Sector An overview of the UK HE sector's contribution to the SDGs Acknowledgements This work was produced by Sonya Peres for EAUC-Scotland. This work has been made possible through funding and support from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Strathclyde Contents What is the Sustainable Development Solutions Network? 1 Purpose of the Report 1 What is the SDSN Guide? 1 The SDSN Guide and the UK 4 Learning and Teaching 5 Global Goals Teach In 5 Vertically Integrated Projects for Sustainable Development 5 (VIP4SD) at the University of Strathclyde Research 6 SDG Analysis: Bibliometrics of Relevance by Aurora Network 6 Institute for Sustainable Future at Keele University 7 Organisational Governance, Culture and Operations of 8 the University The University of Manchester: Sustainable Development Goals 8 Impacting the Global Goals by DEGREEs by the University of 9 Leicester External Leadership 10 On Target for 2030? - University of the West of Scotland and Oxfam 10 Bristol and the SDGs: A Voluntary Local Review of Progress 2019 11 Please note that resources and sources are embedded in this document- simply hover your mouse pointer over a blue word. What is the Sustainable Development Solutions Network? The U N S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t S o l u t i o n s N e t w o r k produces and promotes practical guidance on and solutions to sustainable development, including realising t h e S u s t a in a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t G o a l s (SDGs).
    [Show full text]
  • North Macedonia: 'New' Country Facing Old Problems
    North Macedonia: ‘New’ country facing old problems A research on the name change of the Republic of North Macedonia Willem Posthumus – s4606027 Master Thesis Human Geography - Conflicts, Territories and Identities Nijmegen School of Management Radboud University Nijmegen Supervisor Henk van Houtum October 2019 36.989 words Once, from eastern ocean to western ocean, the land stretched away without names. Nameless headlands split the surf; nameless lakes reflected nameless mountains; and nameless rivers flowed through nameless valleys into nameless bays. G. R. Stewart, 1945, p. 3 2 I Preface After a bit more than a year, I can hereby present my master’s thesis. It’s about a name. Around 100 pages about a name: I could not have thought it would be such an extensive topic. Last year I had heard about Macedonia, or the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as it was often called. I didn’t know it that well, just that it used to be part of Yugoslavia, obviously. An item in the news, however, triggered my interest: the country was about to change its name to North Macedonia. ‘Why?’ I thought. I didn’t know about the name dispute, but the more I read about it, the more I wanted to know. When I had to choose a subject for my master’s thesis, I knew I would look at this name change. A year later, I think I understand the name change and the dispute better. Still, the topic is more complicated than I thought. Understanding everything there is about it would probably take a lot more time.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction “As I have said time and again, my job is to get rid of my job. I am quite clear that the OHR is now into the terminal phase of its mandate”, said then High Representative for the international community in BIH Paddy Ashdown in his speech in front of the Venice Commission1 in October 2004. For over eight years now the international community has been discussing the downscale of its presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina2, which since the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995 has been run as a virtual protectorate. But not much has changed since Ashdown’s speech. Although the country has gone forward in all fields and the security situation has improved drastically since 1995, with the number of NATO peacekeeping forces decreasing from 60,000 to only 1,6003 and with BIH currently a temporary member of the UN Security Council, no arrangements have been made to grant more sovereignty to local politics. And due to recent negative developments in politics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the prospect of getting rid of the ‘informal trusteeship’ now seems more distant than it was at the time of Ashdown’s speech. The OHR, acronym for Office of the High Representative, is the international body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the civilian aspects of the treaty which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is governed by a council of 55 countries and international organizations charged with overseeing Bosnia’s reconstruction, formally organized into an umbrella organization called the Peace Implementation Council (PIC). It is the PIC who 1The European Commission for Democracy through Law, better known as the Venice Commission, is the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters.
    [Show full text]
  • National ERA Roadmap of the Czech Republic for the Years 2016-2020
    National ERA Roadmap of the Czech Republic for the years 2016-2020 INTRODUCTION The Czech Republic contributes to the advancement of European Research Area (hereinafter referred to as “ERA”) from the very beginning of creation of this concept in 2000 by both its national policies as well as by engagement in international cooperation in R&D and innovation. ERA cannot exist without pro-active participation of individual Member States neither without support and coordination provided by the European Commission. Since the well-functioning ERA – contributing by means of R&D and innovation to address grand societal challenges and economic needs – is a fundamental precondition for an overall improvement of the quality of life of European citizens, further development of the ERA is our common goal and the Czech Republic is fully prepared to be an active player in pursuing these tasks. The visibility and importance of ERA – granted by the reference to completion of ERA in 2014 and by confirmation of ERA as one of the cornerstones of the Europe 2020 strategy Innovation Union Flagship – gave a new impetus and momentum to a more targeted debate on the role, functioning and governance of ERA in the following years. Recognition of significance of the advancement of ERA and the need of coherent and well targeted cooperation between the European Commission and Member States triggered an intensive discussion on these topics both in the ERAC (European Research Area and Innovation Committee) and Council´s Research Working Group, which resulted in the adoption of “ERA Roadmap for the years 2015-2020”. The Czech Republic is of the opinion that the individual priority axes of the ERA Roadmap are well selected and defined and respond to areas, which require targeted focus for the further advancement of ERA.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2016 FOREWORD
    ANNUAL REPORT 2016 FOREWORD EL CAMINO SE HACE AL ANDAR ach and every year with streetfootballworld feels very special. ANNUAL REPORT 2016, again, was extraordinary in its own right. It was not only time for the largest football for good encounter ever in Lyon, 2016 EFrance, it was also a reunion 10 years after our very first global gathering at the streetfootballworld festival 06 in Berlin, Germany. In addition, and beyond the numeric and symbolic it was historic: after the huge organisational shift in 2014 when we decided to embark on a journey that would require us all to think and act beyond our immediate responsibilities within our individual organisations and communities. I still well remember the moment when we unanimously and wholeheartedly accepted the challenge to not “only” be successful as organisations or as a network of organisations, but that we believed in the potential of collectively investing in building a sustainable and resilient football for good ecosystem. It was a big decision that implies responsibilities and risks beyond the daily challenges that already often seem insurmountable. It was a bet on the future, accepting the uncertainty of the new and taking on the foreseeable doubts and scepticism by those stuck in the status quo of cemented inequalities. We decided, however, that we were mature and solid enough to reach for the stars, make the impossible possible, walk our talk, brave this massive step and take our vision to the street and change the world through football. The incredible days of celebration in Lyon certainly lived up to these historic times.
    [Show full text]
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995
    The War and War-Games in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995 The main events, disagreements and arguments, resulting in a “de facto” divided country Magnus Bjarnason (This page intentionally blank.) 2 The War and War-Games in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995 The main events, disagreements and arguments, resulting in a “de facto” divided country Magnus Bjarnason 3 Anonymous cover photo: Media images make world politics and one picture is worth a thousand “facts”. Published by author. 2001 ISBN 9979-60-669-x Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. This book is intended for academic purposes and for those wishing to study the different aspects of the Yugoslav War of Disintegration. This book is not intended for sale. Extra copies can be obtained from “http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/99-01/f99-01.htm” as of 2002. The author wishes to thank the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) for supporting the research and publication of this book. The views expressed are those of the author and may diverge from current NATO policy in the Balkans. 4 The author expresses his sorrow over how politicians have caused such enormous unnecessary suffering to so many individuals. 5 Contents Chapter title: Page: Summary. 9 I. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE YUGOSLAV CIVIL WAR OF THE EARLY 1990s. 10 1. Introduction. 10 2. Background. 11 II. THE YUGOSLAV WAR OF DISINTEGRATION BETWEEN 1991-1995 AS SEEN FROM INSIDE THE CONFLICT AREA. THE WAR IN THE FIELD. 19 3. The Republic of Serbian Krajina, 1991-1995. 19 4. The Bosnian War in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • UEFA DIRECT • May/June 2020 – 03 CONTENTS CONTENTS
    No. 190 MAY/JUNE 2020 OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE UNION OF EUROPEAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONS 2m No.190 • May/June 2020 No.190 STAY SAFE EDITORIAL Aleksander Čeferin UEFA President FOOTBALL WAITS… AND SHOWS ITS BEATING HEART t is only a matter of weeks since European football was looking forward with great anticipation to an exciting climax to the UEFA and domestic competition seasons, as well as UEFA EURO 2020, a unique tournament Ibridging 12 countries and celebrating the 60th anniversary of the continent’s premium men’s national team competition. Since then, life in Europe and beyond has been turned on its head by the rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus. Football has been brought to a halt at both European and national levels. UEFA has been forced to postpone all its club and national team competitions until further notice, while moving EURO 2020 to the summer of 2021 and UEFA Women’s EURO 2021 to the following year. UEFA reacted swiftly in making these decisions, within a full and frank consultation process not only with its 55 member associations, but also with fellow football stakeholders – clubs, leagues and players’ unions. It was the correct decision at the right time, based on common sense, in compliance with national measures and World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. The unprecedented circumstances indeed made it impossible for any sport to take place. I have been extremely proud of how UEFA and its stakeholders have acted together in a spirit of full and honest cooperation at this time. This spirit remains truly alive within a situation that is in a state of constant evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared for the Future of Work Follow-Up on the Danish Disruption Council
    Prepared for the future of work Follow-up on the Danish Disruption Council FEBRUARYFEBRUAR 2019 2019 3 Content Preface ...................................................................................................... 4 Joint chapter The Government’s and Danish Disruption Council’s objectives for the future Denmark ........................................................................ 6 The Government’s follow-up on the Disruption Council’s work Chapter 1. New and higher requirements for the education system of the future .................... 12 Chapter 2. Productive and responsible companies in a digital world .................................. 26 Chapter 3. A modern and flexible labour market ........................................................ 38 Chapter 4. Globalisation, foreign labour and free trade ................................................ 48 Annex Annex 1. Output from the Council ........................................................................ 60 Annex 2. Financial overview .............................................................................. 62 4 Preface We have done well for ourselves in Denmark. Over The Council has set a common goal for Denmark the course of generations, we have built a country to remain one of the wealthiest countries in the that gives citizens and companies the opportunity world and to ensure that Danes get the prosperity to live out their potential in a well-functioning and security that they have every right to expect. society. At the same time, we have set a goal that everyone in Denmark must successfully step into the future. The fact that our country is prosperous is no Everyone should have a real prospect of being able accident. For many years, we have been good at to live a good life and a future with many oppor- seizing the opportunities provided through tech- tunities. nological advances and globalisation, and thereby improving life for the ordinary Dane. That is how it Over the past two years, the Danish Disruption must be in the future as well.
    [Show full text]
  • France and Unaids
    FRANCE AND UNAIDS A common goal of ending AIDS UNAIDS | 2019 FRANCE AND UNAIDS A common goal of ending AIDS France, a long-term partner of UNAIDS and the third largest donor to the global AIDS response, is a champion of human rights, gender equality, key populations, education, and sexual and reproductive health and rights. France is a founding member of the Global HIV Prevention Coalition and the second largest donor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund). France hosted the sixth Global Fund replenishment in 2019. France is also a founding member and largest donor of UNITAID since its creation, which also endeavors in cooperation with UNAIDS to accelerate access to innovative HIV care and treatment. “We have not won the battle against AIDS. We need to protect ourselves, get tested, get treated and accept those in society who have HIV.” — Emmanuel Macron, President of France Annual core funding to UNAIDS from France In 2018, France contributed €400 000 (over US$ 490 000) in core funding to UNAIDS. 1 000 000 These funds have been used to support 800 000 work by UNAIDS to overcome barriers to HIV service access and to support countries in 600 000 achieving time-bound, measurable targets US$ 400 000 on HIV. UNAIDS greatly values France’s partnership on shared priorities and its 200 000 continued commitment to ending AIDS as 0 a public health threat by 2030. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Collaborative global efforts, including work 6200 young women aged 15–24 years by civil society in France, have ensured that become infected with HIV.
    [Show full text]
  • Value-Based Coverage Policy in the United States and the United Kingdom: Different Paths to a Common Goal Wilhelmine Miller, Consultant
    Background Paper November 29, 2006 Value-Based Coverage Policy in the United States and the United Kingdom: Different Paths to a Common Goal Wilhelmine Miller, Consultant OVERVIEW — This background paper traces the development within American health care of two interrelated trends and activities: an evidence- based approach to medical practice and the critical evaluation of new tech- nologies with respect to their costs and effectiveness. Over the past 35 years each of these developments has increasingly shaped the coverage decisions of public and private health insurers, and their importance for coverage policy is certain to grow. The paper also contrasts the different approaches to such “evidence-” or “value-based” coverage policy in the mixed public and private U.S. health care enterprise with the approach taken in Great Britain’s single-payer National Health Service. NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FORUM FACILITATING DIALOGUE. FOSTERING UNDERSTANDING. Background Paper November 29, 2006 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................3 BACKGROUND .................................................................................4 EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE AS THEORY AND PRACTICE .................6 Clinical Practice Guidelines ...........................................................6 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force ................................................8 DEVELOPMENT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN THE UNITED STATES .....................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Planning for the Kazakhstani Tourism Industry
    ISSN 1648-2603 (print) VIEŠOJI POLITIKA IR ADMINISTRAVIMAS ISSN 2029-2872 (online) PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION 2019, T. 18, Nr. 2 / 2019, Vol. 18, No 2, p. 299–313. Comparative Analysis: Strategic Planning for the Kazakhstani Tourism Industry Serik Orynbasarov, Roza Bugubaeva, Nurlan Tazhbayev Roza Bespayeva, Erlan Begezhanov Karaganda Economic University of Kazpotrebsoyuz Akademicheskaya St. 9, Karaganda 100009, Kazakhstan DOI:10.13165/VPA-19-18-2-09 Abstract. Study of the process and content of the evaluation of strategic and pro- gram documents, assessment of regulatory impact in the Republic of Kazakhstan, and determination of further prospects for assessment development. Analysis of the strategic and program documents of national and regional government bodies regulating the de- velopment of the tourism industry, the allocation of tasks and targets for the development of tourism, as well as the risks of the implementation of tourism development programs. Evaluation of these instruments is carried out using the SMART method, and guidelines for the development of programs for regional tourism development are given. The analysis identified problems that contribute to the further development of the assessment. For per- formance-based management, it is proposed to introduce changes to the basic provisions, principles, system parameters and algorithm for rating the activities of central and local tourism development authorities to improve the competitiveness of tourism clusters at the national and regional levels. The scientific novelty lies in the study of the relationship between the genesis of the evaluation of strategic and program documents from the mo- ment of the formation of the state planning system in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
    [Show full text]