1. 1 Welcome to the Presentation of Zhidas Daskalovski, PhD Sub-national Budget Watch in Macedonia

2. 2 Part One: Introduction to the Topic and Research

3. 3 What is Sub-national Budget Watch? investigating the rhetoric of public officials, matching it with the budget lines, understanding what the funds are spent on

4. 4 What is the Effect of Citizen’s Budget Watch? identification of the weaknesses and strengths of governmental policies, holding governments accountable safeguards from corruption increased trust in governments and social cohesion

5. 5 Who Does Budget Watch on Local Level in Macedonia? State Audit Office Internal Units within the Local Government How About the Citizens? Let us See...

6. 6 Why Research in Shtip and Gostivar Municipalities? Similar and Different  Representative Sample –Towns with 45,000 inhabitants –Multiethnic Gostivar & Macedonian Shtip –Gostivar in the West, Shtip in the East –Shtip industrial, Gostivar trade & remittances –Ruled by different political parties

7. 7

8. 8 Part Two: Research Findings

9. 9 Shtip Realities Mayor cooperative “budget is available to the citizens, they can monitor, etc.” But! Staff gives only a shortened version of the budget Municipality Information Center does not have the budget but also “it could not be given without the permission of the mayor”

10. 10 Gostivar Realities Old mayor bluntly refuses to give a copy of the budget claiming that we have no right to such information. New mayor more transparent. But the staff hold to old ways! “When in MoD do you ask for secret files?” “Make a written request, we will discuss maybe we will approve giving you a copy.”

11. 11 Macedonian Realities- Access to Information 40 % of citizens asking information from state institutions obtained it but 70% of these had difficulties getting it 27% of those asking information did not receive any answers from the state organs 33% were refused access to the needed information with no explanation

12. 12 Political Culture in Macedonia Low Accountability of Public Officials Low Level of Citizens Participation in Policy Processes Lack of Public Policy Evaluation and Monitoring

13. 13 Part Three: Recommendations

14. 14 Recommendations 1: Public Availability of Budget Monitoring Need for legal obligations of local government to keep a file of the budget accessible to the public in the local government unit organize quarterly sessions for public overview of the budget execution disseminate info on budget execution to public, have sufficient human resources to deal with interested citizens

15. 15 Recommendations 2: Influencing Budget Formation Need for legal obligations of local government to: hold public hearings before adopting key decisions, such as the annual budget or changes of fee for local public services. Such formulation was part of the draft law!

16. 16 General Recommendation: Adopt an Access to Information Law Many of the problems with transparency in budget monitoring occurred due to the lack of freedom of information law. The law is adopted but yet to see the results.

17. 17 Recommendation To the Civil Sector- Engage! CRPM produced a Budget Watch Guide, conducts trainings OSI Macedonia also works on Budget Monitoring Others?

18. 18 Part Four: Conclusion

19. 19 Improved Citizen’s Budget Watch in Macedonia Will: Supplement Government Audit and Increase Transparency Better Public Policy & Services to Citizens Link Public Officials and General Interests Increase Public Trust in Politicians Win Votes

20. 20 To do this We Need to: Amend the Law on Financing the Municipalities, the Law on Self-Government, and the Law on Audit Engage the Civil Sector Use the Freedom of Information Law Start a Citizen Information Campaign We Start Working on the Issue Now!

21. 21 Comments and Questions: Zhidas Daskalovski daskalovski@crpm.org.mk Center for Research and Policy Making www.crpm.org.mk Mirche Macan bb 1000 Skopje