2010年-世界发展银行全球_Technical_Assistance_to_the_Republic_of_Serbia___Advisory_Support_to_the_Working_Group_Designing_a_Reform_Strategy_for_Municipal_Public_Uutility_Companies_15页_298kb

Technical Assistance to the Republic of Serbia: PUC Reform Strategy Design

Core Content

This document outlines the technical assistance project provided by the World Bank, through the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), to support the design of a national strategy for the reform of municipal public utility companies (PUCs) in Serbia. The project was initially launched in early 2008 but faced delays due to the parliamentary and local government elections in May 2008, which led to a change in leadership at the Ministry of Economy and Regional Development (MERD). The project was formally initiated in October 2008, with the first official meeting held in February 2009.

Main Objectives

The project aimed to:

• Assist MERD in steering the working group.
• Provide targeted inputs to working group discussions.
• Help the government determine the institutional, analytical, and informational steps required for reform.
• Advise the World Bank and PPIAF on the potential need for further external assistance.

Key Activities

Stage 1: Launching the Working Group Operation

LGID (Local Government Infrastructure Development) prepared several documents to support the working group:

• Identification of proposed reform areas (Annex 4): including structuring the reform process, ownership issues, operational funding, and social policy.
• Technical assistance and development programs (Annex 5): a compilation of donor programs relevant to PUC reform.
• Proposed topics, partners, and timing (Annex 6): mapping reform issues with potential contributors and setting meeting schedules.
• Support to the first session (Annex 7 and 8): presentations on reform areas and the SKGO’s approach, followed by a request for written comments from WG members.

Stage 2: Drafting the PUC Reform Strategy

In response to the ineffective operation of the working group, the five donor organizations (EBRD, KfW, MISP, MEGA, WB) decided to take an active role in drafting the reform strategy. LGID contributed by:

• Preparing a work plan for the international team (Annex 9).
• Writing background reports and case studies (Annex 10, 11, 12): benchmarking, social policy, and the Hungarian case.
• Collecting data on PUCs in Serbia (Annex 13): including survey data from 23 major cities.
• Participating in strategy design (Annex 14 and 15): contributing to draft chapters and translating the strategy into Serbian.
• Presenting the draft strategy to the working group on December 19, 2009, with a deadline for feedback set for January 15, 2010.

Reform Strategy: Potential Roadblocks and Proposals

Continuous Need for Reform

The public utility sector in Serbia faces several challenges:

• Mixed ownership structures create inefficiencies and prevent market-based reforms.
• Lack of accountability mechanisms leads to over-politicization and inefficiency.
• Insufficient data on PUCs hampers performance benchmarking and financial planning.
• Limited economies of scale due to weak inter-municipal cooperation.
• Financial crisis and budget cuts have increased the pressure for reform.
• Regulatory framework for capital investments and local borrowing is underdeveloped.

Strategy Priorities and Sequencing

The reform strategy prioritizes:

1. Ownership and infrastructure transfer to municipalities.
2. Corporate restructuring and management reforms.
3. Accountability mechanisms at national, local, and customer levels.
4. User charge setting at cost recovery levels.
5. Capital investment planning and financing.
6. Private sector participation through pilot projects and PPPs.

The strategy emphasizes private sector involvement rather than exclusive privatization, aiming to improve efficiency through restructuring and service agreements.

Procedural Issues of Strategy Design

• The government did not specify clear political targets for the reform.
• The working group lacked internal capacity and was not representative of PUCs.
• There was minimal cooperation from other ministries and agencies.
• Sessions were poorly managed, with last-minute schedule changes and lack of transparency.
• The strategy was criticized as a "donor product" and not fully aligned with local needs.
• An action plan was not developed due to lack of government support.

Proposals for Further Actions

1. Preparation of an action plan:

   • Must be based on a proper assessment of administrative and financial capacity.
   • Should be a joint effort between domestic and international experts.

2. Introducing benchmarking and service agreements:

   • To improve performance and service delivery.
   • Establish clear performance standards and contractual obligations.

3. Modernization of tariff setting:

   • Develop transparent and standardized formulas.
   • Ensure cost recovery while introducing social support mechanisms for low-income groups.

4. PUC transformation and privatization:

   • Assets should be transferred back to municipalities.
   • Privatization should be approached cautiously to avoid political resistance.

5. Support to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs):

   • Encourage local initiatives without government restrictions.
   • Develop institutional frameworks for inter-municipal cooperation and regionalization.

Key Information

• The reform strategy was presented to the working group in December 2009.
• The government aims to finalize the strategy and present it for public discussion.
• The strategy is seen as a critical step towards improving efficiency and transparency in public utility services.
• The project was extended to December 31, 2009, due to the working group's limited capacity.
• The final report includes a list of potential roadblocks and recommendations for future steps.

Conclusion

The reform of municipal public utility companies in Serbia is a complex and politically sensitive process. The strategy design, led by international donors, highlights the need for institutional, financial, and regulatory changes to improve service delivery and efficiency. However, the lack of government support, transparency, and local involvement poses significant challenges to the successful implementation of the reform. The proposed action plan and further investigations are essential for turning the strategy into a practical reform roadmap.