Moldova

Local Responsibilities and Public Services in Moldova: An Introduction

Viorel Girbu, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, NALAS – Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

Moldova has developed framework legislation that guides the regulation of the local authority’s competencies in accordance with the principles specified in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Article 1 of the Law on Administrative Decentralization in Moldova guarantees that local public authorities have the right and the effective capacity to regulate and manage, according to the law, an important part of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interest of the local population. In this regard, the process of administrative decentralization is guided by the principles of subsidiarity, equity among local authorities, correspondence of resources with competences, financial solidarity, institutional dialogue, partnership, and responsibility of local authorities.

The current process of developing the regulatory framework tends to build a system of attributions/transfers of competencies between central administration and local authorities, characterized by functionality, clarity, stability, correlation with available resources and administrative capacity of the local public authorities (LPAs). The aim is to provide public services in an unrestricted (improved access), efficient (as low costs as possible) and effective manner (according to the needs and requirements of beneficiaries, including vulnerable groups), ensuring a minimum level of service quality.

As a rule, decentralized competencies, such as those relating to urban planning and management, maintenance of educational institutions and activities in the cultural and social protection domains, management of the municipal enterprises, and passenger car transport, are those responsibilities that are transferred to LPAs, to provide public services according to the specific local needs and preferences of the beneficiaries. In this situation, LPAs should enjoy autonomy in the management and provision of these competencies – central public authorities should no longer use direct management and decision tools, but only indirect tools such as the development of specific public policies, mandatory quality standards, the provision of incentives and penalties (especially financial), monitoring, control, law enforcement and evaluation.

In reality, however, the implementation of the principles contained in the Law on Administrative Decentralization is not straightforward. Many, if not all the problems in this respect stem from the historical inheritance of a very fragmented system of LPAs at the communal level, a fragmentation which has been compounded by high levels of both emigration and internal migration. This has left many communes extremely small and with limited resources and capacities. Indeed, despite a symmetric decentralization model, many rural local governments are not able to provide many of the services they are responsible for, according to the nomenclature of local responsibilities. Notably, the provision of services related to the collection and management of household waste, including sanitation and maintenance of landfills; water supply distribution, construction and maintenance of sewerage and wastewater treatment systems; construction, maintenance and lighting of local public streets and roads; local public transport is mostly lacking in the vast majority of rural LPAs and only partially available in the urban-type LPAs in Moldova. ‘This situation is mainly due to limited progress in the area of financial decentralization and overall limited level of the financial resources managed by the LPAs. In 2018 over 54 per cent of the state budget revenues in Moldova were destined for transfers to other components of the National Public Budget (BPN). Local budgets are highly dependent on transfers from the state budget, with over 70 per cent of local budget revenues in 2017-2018 coming from these transfers.’[1]

Though all of the public services and competences of the LPAs are part of the same list approved by law, the actual degree of local decision-making autonomy differs for each competence. A major criterion that influences the level of the competences exercised by LPAs is the source of funding for the service delivery. As a result, and particularly with respect to social sector functions, most public services are managed hierarchically and are still very centralized according to the secondary legislation. A recent assessment on the progress of decentralization in Moldova points on the fact that ‘[a]lthough the reform of local public finances started in 2013 aimed at implementing a mechanism for forming local budgets that would increase the degree of financial autonomy of local public authorities, in the period after the reform there was an opposite trend.’ [2]

In the social domain the education sector is achieving best performance from the perspective of service access. The access to education has a relative uniform coverage throughout the territory of the country. This is possible because of the significant financial support provided from the central budget in form of categorical grants and high involvement of the central authorities in the overall management of the sector. However, the situation limits the degree of control by LPAs over the service provision that is in reality a deconcentrated service rather than decentralized competence of the LPAs.

References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications

Legal Documents:

Law no 764/2001 on Administrative-Territorial Organization of the Republic of Moldova

Law no 435/2006 on Administrative Decentralization

Law no 436/2006 on Local Public Administration

Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications:

Budianschi D, ‘Autonomia financiară în Republica Moldova: evoluția veniturilor bugetelor locale’ (Expert-Grup 2019)         <https://www.expert-grup.org/media/k2/attachments/Autonomia_financiara_in_Republica_Moldova.pdf>

Expert-Grup,‘Reforma descentralizării – spre centralizare: în perioada anilor 2016 – 2018 dependența autorităților locale de transferurile de la bugetul de stat a sporit, iar autonomia financiară s-a diminuat’ (Expert-Grup, 26 June 2019)    <https://www.expert-grup.org/ro/activitate/comunicate-de-presa/item/1824-reforma-descentralizarii-spre-centralizare-in-perioada-anilor-2016-2018-dependenta-autoritatilor-locale-de>

[1] Dumitru Budianschi, ‘Autonomia financiară în Republica Moldova: evoluția veniturilor bugetelor locale’ (Expert-Grup 2019)          <https://www.expert-grup.org/media/k2/attachments/Autonomia_financiara_in_Republica_Moldova.pdf>.

[2] Expert-Grup,‘Reforma descentralizării – spre centralizare: în perioada anilor 2016 – 2018 dependența autorităților locale de transferurile de la bugetul de stat a sporit, iar autonomia financiară s-a diminuat’ (Expert-Grup, 26 June 2019) <https://www.expert-grup.org/ro/activitate/comunicate-de-presa/item/1824-reforma-descentralizarii-spre-centralizare-in-perioada-anilor-2016-2018-dependenta-autoritatilor-locale-de>.

Local Financial Arrangements in Moldova: An Introduction

Viorel Girbu, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, NALAS – Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

At first glance Moldova has a highly decentralized public sector with second and first level local authorities responsible for preschools, primary and secondary education, social assistance etc. Local governments in Moldova are responsible for about a fourth of total public revenue, the highest levels in South-East Europe. However, this picture may be misleading. In practice, the central government and its deconcentrated structures continue to hold substantial decision-making powers over local functions and finances. Considering that freely disposable grants and local own revenue together constitute about a fourth of total local revenues, most local governments’ functions, besides being severely underfunded, remain de-facto delegated, rather than decentralized.

Given the significant (delegated) responsibilities that Moldovan local governments have to carry out, the budgetary system in Moldova is dominated by intergovernmental transfers. The current framework for own local government revenue mobilization remains largely ineffective because it provides little incentives to local governments for improving revenue collection. The educational sector receives the lion’s share of the intergovernmental transfers (77 per cent). Other local government functions, although quite expensive, like the collection and management of household waste, including sanitation and maintenance of land for their storage, or, water supply, construction and maintenance of sewage and wastewater treatment systems, do not get any significant financial support from the state budget.

Shared tax revenues are allocated directly to local governments based on the residence of the employer, in different proportions: 100 per cent for villages, cities (excepting capital cities of rayons) and municipalities (excepting Chisinau and Balti); 50 per cent for the capital of Moldova – Chisinau municipality, Balti municipality and cities and municipalities that are also capital cities of a rayons; 25 per cent for rayons.

The remaining part of the shared tax revenues is withheld and transferred to the Balancing Fund,^[1] which is the source of the General-Purpose Transfer received by local governments. Both, cities and villages (Local Public Administration level 1 [LPA1]) and municipalities (excepting Chisinau and Balti municipalities) and rayons (Local Public Administration level 2 [LPA2]) can benefit from general purpose transfers, which are allocated from the balancing fund, 45 per cent in favor of LPA1 and 55 per cent in favor of LPA2. General purpose transfers are distributed to local governments on the basis of fiscal capacity per inhabitant data, multiplied by a coefficient of 1.3 and then on the basis of the population and size of territory of each LPA1. Fiscal capacity per inhabitant is determined by taking into consideration incomes generated only by the wage tax, regardless of the type of the locality (rural, urban). For LPA2, the allocation criteria refer to population and territory (except for the municipalities of Chisinau and Balti that cannot benefit from general purpose transfers). General purpose transfers are limited to the total amount of the balancing fund. Rules for the general-purpose transfers’ distribution do not take into consideration the total amount needed in order to meet the average fiscal capacity per inhabitant for all local public authorities (LPAs) which can lead to a situation when available funds are lower than needed.

The third, and larger, type of intergovernmental transfer is the Special Purpose Conditional Transfer, financed directly from the central government budget. These transfers are allocated to local governments to fund expenditure needs of the educational sector, road infrastructure, delegated functions and capital investment. These transfers do not finance rayon or local level social protection services provided by municipalities and rayons. Additionally, LPA1, have no competences in the distribution of the funds allocated for the development of the road infrastructure, which limits local financial decentralization.

References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications

Law 397/2003 on Local Public Finances

[1] A recent legislative initiative approved by Parliament presumes the allocation of additional resources for the Balancing Fund, through a share of revenues generated by the income tax. However, the precise share of the revenues generated by the income tax that are directed into Balancing Fund will have to be determined by the annual state budget law as it is not prescribed by the law on local finances, leading to even more confusion in the local budgets’ formation.

The Structure of Local Government in Moldova: An Introduction

Viorel Girbu, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, NALAS – Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

Local public administration reform and territorial and administrative reform is a sensitive subject in Moldovan politics. Since the onset of its independence, Moldova saw a major territorial reform implemented in 1998 which proved to be unsuccessful and reversed during the next political circle with a new political establishment in 2001.

The 1998 territorial and administrative reform brought two important changes. Firstly, the number of second-tier local public administrations (level 2 LPAs) was reduced from 40 rayons to ten counties, while the number of first-tier local public administrations (level 1 LPAs) was reduced from 912 to 662 which was later considered insufficient to give a boost for development of LPA level I. Secondly, the functions related to public services were concentrated at the level of the county administration, managed by the Prefect — the representative of the government. The second change was not welcomed by citizens, because it increased the distances between public services and citizens.[1]

The 1998 territorial and administrative reform was basically reverted in 2001, given the new political context in the country. The new regulation re-established a fragmented second-tier LPA administration based on rayons, and increased again the number of first-tier LPAs to 971 units, including 26 in the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia (ATUG) and 70 localities in the breakaway Transnistrian region. Returning to rayon administration meant returning to a number of first-tier LPAs almost as in 1998, and therefore to the situation before the territorial and administrative reform. Second-tier LPA boundaries also changed, but the lower number of rayons was the consequence of the creation of the ATUG (which includes three former rayons, currently named dolai).

Changes in the administrative-territorial structure involved the creation of an additional institutional level – eight territorial offices of the State Chancellery. The main purpose of the territorial offices was to ensure the management of decentralized services, together with the ministries, which held the status of founders of decentralized regional services. This approach led to increased costs of providing services, which were accessible mainly in some of the cities which were also a rayon residence. First-tier LPAs were not yet able to provide most of the services to the population. The territorial offices of the State Chancellery were subsequently reformed and transferred to the management of the former Ministry of Local Public Administration. In 2009, the territorial offices were transferred back to the State Chancellery.

Since 2009, administrative decentralization has been managed in the framework of the National Decentralization Strategy for the period 2012-2015, latter extended until 2018. This document aimed at transformation in a few areas, covering decentralization of services and skills; financial decentralization; patrimony decentralization and local development; administrative capacity of LPA; democracy, ethics, human rights, and gender equality.

According to the evaluation Report published in 2018 on the progress in the implementation of the strategy, ‘[t]he main policy documents and commitments in the field of decentralization and local self-government have expired and remain largely unimplemented.’ [2] Main achievement of the strategy is a progress in the local finances domain with the amendment of the Law no 397 on Local Public Finances that has introduced the general and special purpose transfers for the LPAs and subsequently the fiscal capacity principle for the distribution of the general purpose transfers.[3]

Currently, the administrative and territorial organization of Moldova, apart from the Autonomous Territorial Unit of Gagauzia (ATUG), is based on two levels: villages (communes), sectors (of the Chisinau municipality) and cities (municipalities) that constitute the first-tier local public authorities (LPAs) and rayons, Chisinau and Balti municipalities that constitute the second-tier local governments. Urban localities are classified on four ranks according to a list of indicators that describe their level of social and economic development. From the total number of localities, 66 are urban, including 53 cities and 13 municipalities and 832 are rural. It is also important to mention that 597 localities, with very small population, do not have their own administration as they are part of a bigger administrative entity.

Territorial and administrative reform remains a key priority of the government in Moldova, and therefore is a sensitive subject in Moldovan politics. The government views the territorial and administrative fragmentation as one of the key challenges that needs to be addressed in order to strengthen local governments, reduce territorial disparities and improve service delivery.

Indeed, there are significant disparities across the spectrum of urban and rural first-tier LPAs in Moldova. Currently, 30 per cent of first-tier LPAs have less than 1,500 inhabitants, although, according to the legal provisions, for the formation of an administrative-territorial unit the number of population must be at least 1,500 inhabitants. At the same time, about 89 per cent of first-tier LPAs has a population of less than 5,000 inhabitants. In accordance with the legal provisions, administrative capacity is defined as adequate for an LPA if its administrative expenses do not exceed 30 per cent of the total amount of its own revenues. An analysis of the financial reports for 2017 reveal that not even one first-tier LPA met this legal criterion. On average, the administrative costs of first-tier LPAs are about 2 times higher than their own revenues. Moreover, only about 89 first-tier LPAs can cover their administrative expenses with their own revenues. The administrative expenditures in per capita terms in smaller first-tier LPAs (less than 1,500 inhabitants) are almost twice the national average. In larger first-tier LPAs (more than 5,000 inhabitants), administrative expenditures are 2.5 times smaller than in those LPAs with less than 1,500 inhabitants.

Along with administrative capacity, fiscal capacity per capita approximates the level of economic development of an LPA, being defined as the ratio between the amounts of income collected from Personal Income Tax (PIT), related to the number of inhabitants. Based on the data for 2017, only about 12 per cent of first-tier LPAs has a higher fiscal capacity per inhabitant than the national average (lei 697.14).

The share of capital investments in the total expenditures of first-tier LPAs is limited, being largely financed from special purpose transfers of the state budget, investment funds managed at the national level (energy efficiency fund, the ecological fund, the regional development fund, the social investment fund, etc.), as well as from external grants. The distribution of the funds allocated for capital investments is made in a highly non-transparent manner as there are no formula or any transparent rules or formulas governing the allocation. As a result, these allocations are considered as highly politicized. Also, there is no representation of the LPAs in the management of the investment funds created at the national level. [4]

It has to be mentioned that the situation regarding the provision of two essential local public services, the supply of drinking water and the collection, transport and storage of household waste, is very problematic. According to official statistics, in 2017 only 54.4 per cent of the country’s population benefited from drinking water supply services. Also, the analysis in territorial profile shows the existence of large areas in the north, center and southeast of the Republic where less than 20 per cent of the population has access to the public drinking water supply system. In 2017, only 23.1 per cent of the total population had access to sewerage services, with a major difference between urban and rural areas, of 50.6 per cent and only 2.3 per cent, respectively.

Regarding the collection, transport and storage of household waste, according to the National Bureau of Statistics, in 2017, only 30.9 per cent of the population is served by sanitation services, the degree of coverage in urban areas being 64.1 per cent and only 6.0 per cent in rural areas. These figures are reinforced by the audit of the Court of Accounts carried out in 2017,[5] which shows that 723 localities do not have access to public drinking water supply system and 1,378 localities, out of 1,521 in total do not benefit from sanitation services.

Nonetheless, there is little political or social consensus in Moldova related to the territorial and administrative reform. Voluntary amalgamation is a rather new concept in Moldova. While this form of bottom-up territorial and administrative reform has a high potential for success, still it lacks the development of a clear set of incentives for local communities and the necessary institutional framework.

Several analyses show that the lack of financial and administrative capacity of first-tier LPAs to provide a minimum amount of public services for the population remains a key challenge. From this perspective, the amalgamation of first-tier LPAs through a territorial and administrative reform is the major solution discussed and proposed by the central government. However, in Moldova there is little political or social consensus related to the administrative-territorial reform that would (or should in theory) lead to an improvement in the provision to the population of cost efficient and high quality public services. The issue of the identification of a proper balance between owned competencies and capacities to perform the mandatory functions still did not find a widely supported solution. The approaches to the resolution of these problems range between significant reductions of the administrative costs of the LPAs with subsequent risks related to limitation in the access of the population to the public services and centralization to the higher administrative level of the LPAs’ competences.

Territorial reform against the background of high political instability and polarization raises significant concerns for local democracy and autonomy. Secondly, there are no sustainable grounds to believe that the administrative-territorial reform will bring any economies of scale. Even if the average size of Moldovan municipalities is increased, this will not necessarily prove to be more efficient and effective. Currently, there are towns with significantly higher population compared to small rural communities that are less efficient and there are many small municipalities with fairly high performance in the delivery of public services.

References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications

— — ‘Local Democracy Situation and the Degree of Implementation of Decentralization Policy Documents in the Field of Decentralization in the Republic of Moldova’ (monitoring report, CALM/IDIS Viitorul 2018)              <http://www.viitorul.org/files/Local%20Democracy%20Monitoring%20Report_Moldova.pdf>

Beschieru I and others, ‘Studiu privind scenariile de reformă administrativ-teritorială’ (2018) <https://cancelaria.gov.md/sites/default/files/studiul_privind_scenariile_de_reforma_administrativ-teritoriala_elaborat_in_decembrie_2018.pdf>

Osadci A, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, ‘Status Report on Local Public Administration Reform in Moldova’ (NALAS, PLATFORMA and CALM 2021)

[1] Ion Beschieru and others, ‘Studiu privind scenariile de reformă administrativ-teritorială’ (publisher 2018)              <https://cancelaria.gov.md/sites/default/files/studiul_privind_scenariile_de_reforma_administrativ-teritoriala_elaborat_in_decembrie_2018.pdf>.

[2] ‘Local Democracy Situation and the Degree of Implementation of Decentralization Policy Documents in the Field of Decentralization in the Republic of Moldova’ (monitoring report, CALM/IDIS Viitorul 2018) <http://www.viitorul.org/files/Local%20Democracy%20Monitoring%20Report_Moldova.pdf>.

[3] ‘Implementarea Strategiei naţionale de descentralizare, discutată în cadrul Comisiei administrație publică’ (interlic, 15 November 2017) <http://www.interlic.md/2017-11-15/implementarea-strategiei-natzionale-de-descentralizare-discutata-in-cadrul-comisiei-administra-ie-pu-51458.html>.

[4] Ion Meleștean, ‘Clientelismul politic în alocarea resurselor publice din Bugetul de Stat către autoritățile publice locale’ (Expert Grup 2018).

[5] Court of Accounts, ‘Eficiența gestiunii economico-financiare și administrării patrimoniului de către întreprinderile care prestează servicii de aprovizionare cu apă a populației’ (2017).

Intergovernmental Relations of Local Governments in Moldova: An Introduction

Viorel Girbu, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, NALAS – Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

Intergovernmental relations in Moldova are regulated according to the Law no 436/2006 on Local Public Administration. According to Article 6 of this law, the local and district councils, mayors and district presidents are autonomous administrative authorities, solving the public affairs of villages (communes), cities (municipalities) and districts. The relations between the central and local public authorities are based on the principles of autonomy, legality, transparency and collaboration in solving common problems. There is no relation of subordination between the central and local authorities, and between the first level and the second level public authorities, except for the cases provided by law. Any administrative control exercised over the activity carried out by the local public authorities must not pursue another purpose than ensuring the observance of legality and of constitutional principles, and the control of opportunity may aim only at achieving the competences delegated to local public authorities (LPAs), under the law. The central public administration authorities consult the representative associations of the LPA authorities in the issues related to the local public administration.

The principle of consultation on the issues related to the local public administration is an important reference in the intergovernmental relations in Moldova. This principle is stated also by the Law no 435/2006 on Administrative Decentralization that refers to the principle of institutional dialogue, as a situation which involves informing and consulting, in due time, local public authorities, in the planning and decision-making process, through their associative structures, on any issues that concern them directly or are related to the process of administrative decentralization.

To facilitate intergovernmental dialogue and consultations, the Law on Administrative Decentralization prescribed the creation of the Joint Decentralization Commission. Such a parity commission in the area of decentralization with the participation of the representatives of LPA associations was created in 2008.[1] The Commission is composed of representatives of the national and local governments, to ensure communication and institutionalized dialogue between the central government and LPAs. Nevertheless, for a long time, the lack of a unified voice of local authorities has negatively influenced advocacy for local government reforms.

The Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova (CALM) plays a fundamental role in intergovernmental relations in Moldova. CALM was constituted in March 2010,[2] by territorial administrative units organized under the law as towns and villages and by their professional associations. This level of membership provides both capacity and political consolidation. Nowadays CALM is the largest and most representative association of local authorities in Moldova. It provides legal advice and supports local autonomy and decentralization. CALM represents 800 LPAs as members with full rights out of the 898 existing in Moldova Even after the establishment of CALM, it took many years before the voice of local authorities became sufficiently important, heard and taken into account by central authorities.

Despite CALM being an active player in the area of decentralization and having now a high degree of representability of first level LPAs, dialog and intergovernmental relations between local and the central governments remains challenging. Due to political instability and the lack of political commitment to advance reforms, the Joint Decentralization Commission has not been able serve as a successful platform for intergovernmental relations. Following an opinion expressed by CALM, ‘[u]nfortunately, all communication, consultation and dialogue between LPA/CALM and the government has disappeared. And the current legal format of communication and dialogue between central and local authorities has proven to be non-functional, selective and formal.’[3] Recent Post-monitoring assessments developed by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe enforced this ascertainment, stating that ‘[o]f special concern was the fact that no appropriate consultation mechanisms could be identified between central government and local authorities.’

During 2017, in spite the fact that this was a decisive year for the implementation of the Decentralization Strategy and other commitments in the field of decentralization and strengthening local autonomy, the Joint Decentralization Commission has not convened at all. Intergovernmental relations over the past three years continued to be formal, with central authorities preferring to unilaterally promote their political vision, through the development of the legislation without proper consideration of the interests of the LPAs, in the areas that target also the interests of the local communities.

Overall, intergovernmental consultation mechanisms are not sufficiently institutionalized and consolidated in Moldova. However, some progress in the institutionalized dialogue between CALM and the government is observed. CALM obtained the right to attend the weekly meetings of the Government Cabinet and the meetings of the Committee of General Secretaries of the Government (the structure which initially examines the draft normative acts before their approval by the government). Similarly, dialogue with parliamentary commissions has been consolidated and institutional dialogue with ministries and public agencies has been established.

References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications

Legal Documents:

Law no 435/2006 on Administrative Decentralization

Law no 436/2006 on Local Public Administration

Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications:

Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, ‘Post-Monitoring Report on the Republic of Moldova’ (2020)

[1] Government Decree no 93/2008, substituted by the Government Decree no 608/2010.

[2] ‘About us’ (Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, last updated 2021) <https://www.calm.md/despre-noi/>.

[3] ‘Congresul Autorităților Locale, extrem de îngrijorat de starea democrației locale’ (Stiri MD, 1 December 2017) <https://stiri.md/article/social/congresul-autoritatilor-locale-extrem-de-ingrijorat-de-starea-democratiei-locale>.

People’s Participation in Local Decision-Making in Moldova: An Introduction

Viorel Girbu, Congress of Local Authorities from Moldova, NALAS – Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe

The Constitution of the Republic of Moldova states the right of citizens to participate in the administration of public affairs directly, as well as through their representatives. The legal provision on citizens’ participation in decision-making is provided by Law 239/2008 on Transparency in the Decision-Making Process. According to Article 6 of the law, citizens, associations established in accordance with the law, other stakeholders have the right to: to participate, under the conditions of this law, in any stage of the decision-making process; to request and obtain information regarding the decision-making process, including to receive the draft decisions accompanied by the related materials, under the conditions of the Law on Access to Information; to propose to the public authorities the initiation of the elaboration and adoption of decisions; to present to the public authorities recommendations regarding the draft decisions under discussion. The public authorities are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure the possibilities of participation of citizens, of the associations established in accordance with the law, or of other interested parties in the decision-making process.

The National Council for Participation (hereinafter – Council) was created at the initiative of the Government of the Republic of Moldova as an advisory body, without legal status, to ensure the participation of civil society and the private sector in elaboration, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and revision of strategic policy documents. The Council aims to develop and promote a strategic partnership between public authorities, civil society and the private sector in order to strengthen participatory democracy in the Republic of Moldova, by facilitating communication and stakeholder participation in identifying and achieving strategic development priorities at all stages, creating the institutional framework and capacities to ensure the full involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process. The Council is formed with broad participation of the members of the civil society organizations, 25 in total, representing different domains of interest.

A public consultation mechanism is regulated by Government Decree no 967/2016 and according to internal procedures of public authorities. Information on the decision-making process is provided through general information, for an indefinite general public, and through targeted information, for defined stakeholders. General information implies the obligatory publication of the information on the official web page of the public authority, on the portal www.particip.gov.md, in a space accessible to the public, as well as by dissemination of a press release in central or local media. Public authorities initiate a public consultation to inform and receive recommendations from stakeholders. These consultations could be organized in different forms that may be in form of soliciting the opinions of civil society, experts, professional associates, academia; setting up permanent or ad hoc working groups; organizing public debates; conducting public hearings; conducting public surveys etc.

Despite the legal framework in Moldova provides for an extensive set of opportunities, yet, implementation is far from satisfactory. Many citizens show indifference to political participation while others lack the knowledge needed to set democratic processes in motion. Given the poor economic situation in the country, specifically in the rural areas, the level of economic development is very limited. A significant part of the active members of the local community left for a better life abroad, which further hindered popular participation in local decision-making. Additionally, the strong legacy of repressive institutions continues to discourage citizen activism and open consultation.

Moldova’s State Chancellery Report[1] on transparency in the decision-making process finds that the legislative framework lacks a methodology on the consultation process, the web portal <www.particip.gov.md> is not well structured, and that additional legal instruments are needed to help contesting the actions of public authorities in case of non-compliance with the law, while the format of the National Council for Participation could be reviewed to ensure greater transparency and representativeness of the associative sector in cooperation with the central public administration. At the local level the situation is even more challenging. While there is a register of the acts of local public authorities (LPAs), the platform <www.actelocale.md> publishes the final and approved decisions only, not the drafts or other accompanying documents which could facilitate the participation of civil society organizations and their constituents in the decision-making process. At the same time, not all LPAs publish their decisions on the mentioned web page.

A recent study on the involvement of citizens in the life of their communities[2] revealed the following reality: ‘85% of the population did not participate at all in any meeting of local councils in the locality (although, according to the law, local council meetings are public); It should be noted that the vast majority of the population (91%) did not write a complaint about a local problem; 79% stated that they had not contacted any local, district, deputy or minister elected in the last twelve months; therefore, we can emphasize the absence of any communication with the elected representatives of the people/state representatives. Only 7% of respondents contacted at least one media institution to report a local issue to. Survey participants do not frequently use social media networks as a tool to discuss a community problem. In the last year, 91% of respondents did not make any posts about any issue to them in the community.’

From these findings one may argue that citizens have limited confidence that local authorities will be able to solve community problems. At the same time, the data indicates also a state of indifference of the population or ignorance of civic involvement tools. It could be also concluded that existing civil involvement institutional framework is still burdensome for an ordinary citizen and may require further improvement.

The real total number of active civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Republic of Moldova is not known. Most registered CSOs (about 65 per cent) are located in Chisinau, although this territorial-administrative unit represents only about 25 per cent of the total population of the country. According to some studies, only about 25 per cent of the total number of CSOs are sufficiently active and develop various projects and initiatives, and among the causes is both the inadequacy of funding within the country and the lack of revenue generation mechanisms through services.

Civil society development is one of the concerns of the political class in Moldova. For the period 2018-2020 Parliament has approved a strategy with a goal to contribute to the development of the civil society that substitutes a similar strategy approved for the period 2012-2015.

References to Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications

Legal Documents:

Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, 1994

Law no 239/2008 on Transparency in Decision-Making

Law no 51/2018 on the Approval of the Development Strategy of Civil Society for the Period 2018–2020 <https://www.legis.md/cautare/getResults?doc_id=105436&lang=ro>

Government Decree no 11/2010 on the Creation of the National Council for Participation

Government Decree no 967/2016 on the Mechanism of Public Consultation with Civil Society in the Decision-Making Process

Scientific and Non-Scientific Publications:

pbp – Good Practice Programme of Local Public Authorities of Moldova, ‘Împreună pentru performanţe în  guvernarea  locală  2017–2018’ (pbp Moldova, undated)      <http://viitorul.org/files/bune%20practici/Programul%20Bunelor%20practici_2019%20site.pdf>

State Chancellery of Moldova, ‘Privind asigurarea transparenței în procesul decizional de către autoritățile administrației publice centrale’ (report, 2019)

[1] State Chancellery of Moldova, ‘Privind asigurarea transparenței în procesul decizional de către autoritățile administrației publice centrale’ (Report, 2019).

[2] Doru Petruţi, Viorelia Zaharco and Alexandru Crivițchi, ‘implicarea cetăţenilor în viaţa comunităţilor’ (imas 2018) <http://imas.md/pic/archives/12/implicarea%20cetatenilor%20in%20viata%20comunitatilor.pdf>.