PROJECT: Support to Maximise the Socio-

economic Development Effects of Sveto Brdo

Mountain Tourism Resort for Lika - Senj and
Zadar Counties, EC CARDS 2004

SV BRDO RESORT
DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

Atos Origin Belgium, Bruxelles, 2007

SV BRDO RESORT DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP
Project team leader: M. Sc. Janez Sirše

Author of the study:

M. Sc. Anton Florijan Barišić

Editor:
Sandra Horvat

Project contracted and realized by: Atos Origin Belgium, Bruxelles

Published by: International Tourism Institute, Ljubljana, 2008

Manuscript completed in December 2007.

CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji

Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana

338.48-52:796.5(497.5)

BARIŠIĆ, Anton Florijan

Sv. Brdo resort development partnership / [author of the study
Anton Florijan Barišić]. - Ljubljana : International Tourism
Institute, 2008

ISBN 978-961-6595-14-8
1. Gl. stv. nasl.
238003968
CARDS 2004 funded project „Support to Maximise the Socio-economic Development
Effects of Sveto Brdo Mountain Tourism Resort for Lika - Senj and Zadar Counties“,
Framework contract Lot N°10 , N°2004 – 0101 – 0117, was prepared for the needs of
Lovinac and Jasenice municipalities.

The project resulted in the following studies:

- Mountain Tourism Resort Sveto Brdo Master Plan (cro, eng)
- Management Model and Public Private Partnership System of MTR Sv. Brdo
(cro, eng)
- SMEs and Supply Chain (eng)
- Human Resource Program (eng)
- Sv Brdo Resort Development Partnership (eng)
- Development brief (cro, eng)

Project work was monitored and verified by members of the project steering committee:
- Mojca Krisper – Figueroa, Delegation of the European Commission in Croatia
- Zoran Šikić, Administration for Nature Protection, Ministry of Culture
- Vesna Rajković, Ministry of Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development
- Maja Hranilović, Ministry of Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development
- Davorka Hajduković, Ministry of the Sea, Tourism, Transport and Development
- Josipa Jukić, Trade and Investment Promotion Agency
- Iva Frković, Central Office for Development Strategy
- Kristina Ozimec, Central Finance and Contracting Unit
- Jagoda Munić, Green Action
- Dražen Peranić, Lika-Senj County
- Davor Lonić, Zadar County
- Hrvoje Račić and Bojana Markotić Krstinić, Lovinac Municipality
- Martin Baričević, Jasenice Municipality
Table of Contents
Sv Brdo resort Development Partnership ..................................................................... 1
Employment - incentive policies ................................................................................... 4
Complementarities between education and employment .............................................. 4
To increase employment and employability of the labour force................................... 4
Thorough reform of the education system .................................................................... 5
Possible obstacles for partnership ................................................................................. 5
Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 6
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 9
The Sv Brdo Project Development Partnership .......................................................... 11
INTEREST GROUPS ................................................................................................. 12
Stakeholders of social and economic development ................................................ 12
The civil sector and citizens .................................................................................... 13
Other parties interested in the project ..................................................................... 15
Annex 1. Partnerships examples .................................................................................. 16
The Community Employment/Job Initiative Framework Agreement in Ireland ........ 16
National governments and partnerships ...................................................................... 17
Partnerships or separated structures? .......................................................................... 18
Spatial consistency of objectives: the Tyrol example ................................................. 19
Separating the partnership functions in Italy .............................................................. 19
Annex 2: The Regional Partnership Committee Regulations ................................... 20
I – GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................... 20
II – THE BODY AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE RPC ........................................ 21
III – MAJOR TASKS OF THE RPC .......................................................................... 23
IV - ACTING OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPCOMMITTEE AND THE
TWG............................................................................................................................ 25
V - FINAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................... 25
Annex 3: Vienna Action Statement on Partnerships ................................................. 26
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Sv Brdo resort Development Partnership

Partnership arrangements, at the national and local levels, form the cornerstone of EU co-
funded economic programmes. Local area based partnerships became popular in Europe
over 20 years ago as a means to respond to socio-economic change. These partnerships
took the format of local and regional government officials working with business and social
organizations to plan and execute development initiatives.

Local and regional partnerships, by definition, are place-based and operate within spatially
configured social, cultural, economic and political relationships. They are necessarily
territorial entities. But while the spatial dimension of development receives formal
recognition at the national and regional scales, the spatial dimension of local development
partnerships is easily forgotten.

Partnership was identified as a way of maximizing mobilization, resources and impact, and
has revealed itself to be effective at responding to the existing economic situations. Such
situations include closure of large traditional industries, poverty increases and social
exclusion.

The “Partnership” is a new vehicle to be set up as part of the Sv Brdo resort development
strategy implementation. The partnership is not elected but should be based on a set of
regulations proposed by the Croatian Ministry of Sea Tourism and Regional Development
and adapted to work well in the specific local conditions. The “Partnership” is a
consultative group that gives recommendations in order to ensure stronger and high quality
stakeholder involvement, but it does not take executive decisions,.

In the absence of partnership arrangements the chances of successful local economic

development are reduced. Stakeholders may attempt to address major structural problems
without the necessary information or awareness of available support. The absence of
partnerships also risks duplication and repetition of policy actions, as well as danger that
activities and projects do not reach the most needed.

Lovinac and Jesenice Municipalities use partnership relations in preparation of the project
Sv Brdo resort, and as well, in its implementation.

The members of this Partnership are to be selected within interest groups as their
representatives. During the project preparation, and Development strategy implementation
Partnership group has to be consulted on every important issue of development and
preparation of strategy. This enhances participatory democracy in the county.

Basic analysis describes that civil society is underdeveloped in the county, and in greatest
measure in Lovinac Municiplity. All the stakeholders consider the development of the civil
society to be very important. One of the priorities directly addresses strengthening of the
civil society aiming at increasing its’ influence on the development in the county.

1
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Measures associated to that priority are:

• Promotion of civil sector and awareness building on its role and importance; and
strengthening the role of civil society in decision making processes
• Preparation and implementation of programmes to improve structure and
mechanisms to support non-profit organizations and organizations of civil society
• Stimulation of voluntarism
• Networking of civil society organizations, and stimulation of inter-regional and
international cooperation of civil sector

Partnership relations will continue in the Sv Brdo project implementation phase. Increase of
municipality (and County) capacity and capability will increase the ability of local people
to manage their local economy achieving a level of livelihood using combined efforts of
public, business and civil sector.

The Local Partnerships for Employment project is addressing the human resource and
employment issues involved in the promotion of national economic and social cohesion in
Croatia. It also develops the capacity of local actors to secure resources for local
employment priorities, and to manage EU Structural Funds – in particular the European
Social Fund - in the post-accession period.

A high-level conference was held in Venice in April 1998 on the decentralization of the public
employment service and the local management of employment policies. It concluded that
decentralization is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to improving governance 1
Partner relationships must be established between labor market authorities at regional level
and the actors responsible for economic development and social inclusion at local level.

The National Employment Action Plan (NEAP)1 2004 of the Croatian Employment
Service (CES) sets out actions to develop a modern, flexible and high-quality labour supply
which is responsive to the market demand and which can enhance the competitiveness of
Croatia in the global economy. Some Human Resource Development (HRD) measures will
be programmed at regional level in conjunction with other types of measure in Regional
Operational Programmes (ROPs).

The overall objective of the Local Partnerships for Employment (LPE) Grant Programme is
to promote increased access to employment (including self-employment) within the local
labour markets of eight selected counties in Croatia. These counties are:
• Brod-Posavina County
• Karlovac County
• Lika-Senj County
• Požega-Slavonia County
• Zadar County
• Šibenik-Knin County

1
Decentralising Employment Policy: New Trends and Challenges , The OECD Venice Conference, OECD
Proceedings, 1998,
http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&lang=EN&st1=041999041p1

2
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

• Sisak-Moslavina County
• Vukovar-Srijem County

The objectives of this Programme will be achieved through, among other means:
• Supporting and building the capacity of local stakeholders to design and implement
locally appropriate labor market measures and projects
• Seeking to raise the competitiveness and develop the adaptability of enterprises
whilst at the same time promoting entrepreneurship according to local market
needs.

The overall objective of this programme is to strengthen the capacity of local actors to
design and implement training and active labour market measures within the framework of
a local partnership approach and by using European Structural Fund (ESF) procedures.
Despite enjoying considerable GDP growth rates for several years, Croatia has nonetheless
been experiencing increased unemployment which is unevenly spread across the country.
The programme is complementary to the Regional Operation Programmes of four counties
(Lika-Senj, Karlovac, Slavonski Brod-Posavina, Pozega-Slavonia), supporting them
through appropriate HRD measures.
This work will:
§ Improve the labor market knowledge at county level;
§ Increase the ability to foster HRD at county level;
§ Raise the awareness of ESF principles and mechanisms among local counterparts in
all four counties (local partnership being the principal approach to planning and
implementation);
§ Reduce the rate of unemployment at county level;
§ Raise the awareness of ESF rules and procedures among HRD regional policy
actors.
The target groups of the programme include:
§ Young unemployed people;
§ Redundant workers or those threatened by unemployment;
§ Unemployed adults, especially the long-term unemployed and those at the edge of
poverty and/or at risk of social exclusion;
§ Inactive, often low skilled and disenfranchised persons who may wish to return to
the labor market;
§ Employed workers or other individuals who aim to upgrade their skills;
§ Business managers.

The Regional Operational Programmes are analyzing socio-economic contexts and

outlining strategies and measures for the further development of the counties in question.
The measures cover three fields, namely:
• investment in infrastructure,
• business development and
• human resource development.

3
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Employment - incentive policies

• implementation of targeted regulations and activities will ensure the development of

institutions and the flexibility of the labor market, relevant Ministries (Ministry of
Labour, Ministry of Science and Ministry of Education) and the Employment
Bureau will: systematically analyze the pattern of skills of the work force and its
employability; asses the professional needs for a competitive work force,
particularly when it comes to new products and technologies, focusing on its
implications for the education system and the enrollment policy of the universities.
This will directly affect new proposals for changes in the organizational structure of
the labor market, education programmes, programmes for additional training and
acquisition of new skills and qualifications. Trade unions and associations of
employers will play an active role in this process,
• organizational structure and functions of the Employment Service will be reformed:
The CES will engage in mediation, consultancy and the preparation of annual
employment plans, whereas the aspect of social policy, thus far performed by the
Employment Service, will fall under the domain of the Ministry of Labour and
Social Welfare.
• The Employment Fund will be encouraged to gradually transform itself into a self-
financing institution.

Complementarities between education and employment

• complementarities between the education system, science and employment will be

developed in line with the EU norms and standards to ensure that education and
science are steered in a direction that matches the needs of a modern labour market,
as well as future labour forecasts.
• technological incubators will be established for the purpose of developing new
technologies, patents and business solutions. Such incubators will partly be financed
by the private sector and will serve as a location for the development of new
technologies, as well as acting as a direct competition to state scientific institutions,
• adequate and stimulating working conditions will be provided for our most
promising scientists in order for their knowledge to be used in Croatia.

To increase employment and employability of the labour force

• An absolute priority of the economic policy is to increase employment, in particular

to create favorable conditions for the employment of young people, women, and
people living on islands and areas of special state concern,
• In order to enhance employability, the education system needs to be reformed and
the permanent education of employees made possible,
• Extensive support to entrepreneurship must be available as the basis of progress and
employment.

4
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Thorough reform of the education system

• reform of the overall education system focusing on the intensification of acquisition
of new skills and the introduction of a flexible system for educating the work force,
• establishment of a life-long education system which relates to new technologies,
products and business procedures,
• taking into account the alarming need for skilled personnel of an entrepreneurial and
managerial, as well as economic and analytical, profile business schools will be set
up at both state and regional level,
• reform of the University into a modern and integrated institution.

Possible obstacles for partnership

Partnerships are becoming a popular tool to improve local governance and to tackle issues
of economic development, employment, social cohesion and the quality of life. However,
working in partnership is not an easy task. It raises a fundamental challenge that of
harmonizing public accountability and participatory democracy.

Elected officials and public officers are accountable to their constituencies and to the
government respectively. Similarly, trade unions and employer representatives are
accountable to their own members in the first place. However, civil society and NGOs have
little or no accountability.

For partnerships to be effective in fostering co-operation and co-ordination, ways must be

found to reconcile standard accountability frameworks with the use of collective strategic
planning exercises involving various types of actors and satisfying a series of conditions for
partnership efficiency like.

• flexible management frameworks,

• institutional commitment,
• social partners assuming local responsibilities,
• mobilisation,
• legitimacy and administrative efficiency).

The analysis of the existing partnership mechanisms on local level in Croatia 2 and of the
problems encountered in meeting the efficiency conditions shed light on three main
challenges that partnerships are facing:
• the inconsistencies in the national policy framework and weak vertical co-
ordination;
• a narrow approach to policy implementation taken by public services seeking to
maximise efficiency in service delivery; and
• weaknesses in accountability due to blurred lines of responsibility.

2
Governance Structures for Local Economic Development in Croatia, 45th Congress of the European
Regional Science Association Land Use and Water Management in a Sustainable Network Society,
23-27 August 2005, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

5
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

A concrete example is labour market authorities, which have as their main objective to
ensure an efficient functioning of the labour market. Their action to promote geographical
mobility to eliminate unemployment disparities is sometimes conflicting with that of
regional governments in depressed areas that strive to revitalise their localities and retain
their younger population groups. Reducing unemployment is an objective that, in certain
circumstances, may need to be balanced with others, such as promoting sustainable
development, social cohesion and the quality of life. Strategic planning exercises carried
out in partnerships can be useful in this context, and lead to the adoption of more
comprehensive development strategies that reflect widely-shared priorities. (see Annex 1)

Another big obstacle to the effectiveness of partnerships is the issue of accountability.

Partnerships are to fail if they will not to have their work monitored and evaluated properly.
The accountability framework of partnerships emphasizes achievements in terms of policy
results (e.g., jobs created, unemployed placed into jobs, business start-ups, etc.). However,
partnerships should be allocated few resources to achieve significant results on these
criteria, as shown in Annex 1. Accordingly, their main task is to help partners better
implement existing programmes, not to create new ones.

Conclusion

In response to these obstacles, local actors composing a partnership, should participate

more systematically in the design of development strategies for their area. While a few
years ago, the civil society, as represented by its community-based groups and NGOs, was
alone in proposing the partnership concept, today it is approached and positively considered
by a wide range of actors.

The business community feels it important to participate in the steering of public

programmes locally in order to address their own concerns about fuelling economic growth.
Public services should welcome this opportunity to make public intervention more
effective. Both the private and public sectors rely increasingly on NGOs and community-
based groups to help meet current challenges, particularly labour and skills shortages.
Conversely, their partners from the civil society seize this opportunity to move forward
their agenda on re-integration for the disadvantaged and skills-upgrading for the low-
qualified.

Trade unions take a more active role in the definition of local strategies, further defining
and developing a new role in promoting improvements in living conditions.

Partnerships allow for the integrated, or “holistic”, approach to policy development, which
is as often advocated as a way to achieve social cohesion and sustainable development3

3
Sustainable Development: Critical Issues, OECD Publications, Paris, France.
http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5LMQCR2KQDLT&lang=EN&sort=sort_date%2Fd&sf1
=Title&st1=sustainable+development+critical+issues&sf3=SubjectCode&st4=not+E4+or+E5+or+P5&sf4=S

6
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

In gathering within a same structure the relevant partners from the public, private and civil-
society sectors, partnerships add information to decision-making processes, increase the
appropriateness of implementation of government policy and co-ordinate with it actions of
other actors. Partnership promotes modern public management methods based on
contracting relationships and empower local stakeholders in the implementation of more
lasting solutions.

Partnerships have also proved useful in helping public services improve the effectiveness of
the programmes they implement: partnerships stimulate the use of measures that
correspond to shared priorities; they help adapt programmes to local needs and conditions,
taking advantage of the knowledge of the various partners on the local problems and target
groups; and they identify and draw on synergies between government programmes and
local initiatives that can enhance their mutual impact.

Local partnerships have a specific role in influencing policy (as distinct from a similar role
for other local agencies and interests). In this respect, it is clear that local partnerships do
consider that they have a unique contribution to make to policy because they bring together
a number of local partners and so can speak more authoritatively not only on local issues
but on wider policies affecting their area.

Partnerships do not generate costs as such: they are a way of working, a tool that can be
used by the various partners to improve the effectiveness of their actions.

Partnerships should be evaluated by their constituencies in terms of how the latter actually
benefit from working in partnership, for example by: increased use and better targeting of
measures; greater responsiveness to local conditions; identification of opportunities for
broader impact through joint activities; and a higher degree of satisfaction among the
population and the partners involved. By neglecting to monitor and evaluate the
performance of partnerships in improving governance, the prevailing accountability
frameworks could fail to improve the working methods of either the partnerships or their
constituent partners.

A strategy can be implemented to maximise the impact of partnerships on governance. The

Strategy has to be designed to make more effective the ways society collectively solves its
problems and meets its needs. It should be part of broader local government initiatives to
reconcile economic competitiveness, social cohesion and environmental progress.

Adopting this strategy has implications not only for partnerships, but also for their
constituencies: the government, and its relevant public services; local and regional
governments; trade unions and employer organisations; NGOs and community-based

ubVersionCode&ds=sustainable+development+critical+issues%3B+All+Subjects%3B+&m=1&dc=2&plang
=en

7
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

organisations. Improving governance through partnerships requires four specific objectives

to be met 4

• to make policy goals consistent at national level; In order to make partnership

relevant and effective, the partners must aim at common or compatible objectives at
national level, which can be pursued more concretely and attained more efficiently
in partnership at local or regional level. Evaluation criteria should be established on
this basis by the partners themselves. This should help solve the accountability
failure identified above. (see Annex 1 -
• to adapt the strategic framework for partnerships to the needs of the partners;
The strategic framework for partnerships should enable public service officers and
local officials to achieve their policy objectives through participation in defining
and implementing the partnership strategy. Paradoxically, strong involvement by
community-based organisations and NGOs may discourage public service officers
from sharing information and from engaging in open discussion on how to surmount
obstacles to cross-sector decision-making. (see Annex 1 - Spatial consistency of
objectives: the Tyrol example)
• to strengthen the accountability framework for partnerships; Joint co-operative
actions may be accompanied by a blurred distribution of responsibility, providing
partners with incentives to claim responsibility for positive results while ignoring
failures. To strengthen the accountability of partnerships, partners from all sectors
(public services, social partners, non-government) should have a clear policy on the
issues addressed by the partnerships. They should, accordingly, define mandates
and reporting mechanisms for their delegates. Partners should agree on appropriate
representation mechanisms for each sector, and on a clear distribution of
responsibility when public programmes are implemented with the partnership’s
involvement. They should seek to separate the functions of strategic planning and
project appraisal involving public funds to avoid conflicts of interest (see Annex 1 -
Separating the partnership functions in Italy).
• to provide flexibility in the management of public programmes. In light of the
partnerships’ strengthened accountability framework, the degree of flexibility
provided in the management of policies related to the goals assigned to partnerships
may be revised to meet the growing needs of local public service offices. a weak
capacity to respond to local priorities by public services, social partners and local
governments undermines the scope for fully co-operative relationships within
partnerships to the extent that it may convey incentives to partnerships to develop
their own measures involving service delivery.

4
Local Partnerships for Better Governance, OECD Publications, Paris, France.;
http://www.oecd.org/document/6/0,3343,en_2649_34417_31532038_1_1_1_1,00.html

8
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Recommendations

The overall objective of establishing a strong local partnership for development is to

strengthen the capacity of local actors to design and implement training and active labour
market measures within the framework of the CPT SV. Brdo project, because both
municipalities Lovinac and Jasenice, have nonetheless been experiencing increased
unemployment which is unevenly spread across the counties of Lika_Senj and Zadar.
Organizing a partnership aiming to help successful implementation of the Sv. Brdo project
and further development of local and regional labour market and sustainable SME
development serving the needs of CPT SV. Brdo touristic complex, supporting them
through appropriate HRD measures which take into account the methodology developed
through the 2002 CARDS project: “Local Partnership for Employment Project”, will:
§ Improve the labour market knowledge at local and county level;
§ Increase the ability to foster HRD at local and county level;
§ Reduce the rate of unemployment at both local and county level;
The target groups of the programme include:
§ Young unemployed people;
§ Redundant workers or those threatened by unemployment;
§ Unemployed adults, especially the long-term unemployed and those at the edge of
poverty and/or at risk of social exclusion;
§ Inactive, often low skilled who may wish to return to the labour market;
§ Employed workers or other individuals who aim to upgrade their skills;
§ Entrepreneurs and SME managers

The partnership will also improve business environment for SME and supply chain
development in line with Sv. Brdo resort needs and as well along with local and regional
development strategy. In that respect it is necessary to provide partnership with sufficient
resources (human, financial) to enable it act in favour of local development needs.

The work of partnership has to be regulated in order to achieve full synergy effects in
implementation of the Sv Brdo project, and draw out the best from the efforts each actor in
the partnership can invest in. The excellent example of the partnership regulatory
agreement is shown in Annex 2. 5

However, whether the CPT Sv. Brdo project will be successful or not depends not just on
the innate value of the project, but also on how the project is going to be implemented and
subsequently managed.

Effective implementation is vital because experience shows us that projects can fail if
badly implemented; and whole development strategy could be compromised because of
weak implementation, inappropriate financing strategies, and/or poor management over the
project lifetime.
5
Regional operational plan Lika Senj County, 2005-2010

9
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

The proposed implementation mechanisms, funding strategy and project and programme
evaluation and monitoring procedures for the County ROP are described in this Chapter:

• Institutional arrangement for partnership - a description of the institution set-up

proposed for the implementation of the Sv. Brdo project comprises the stakeholders
on national and regional level. They are high level representatives of
o Ministry of Culture, nature protection department
o Ministry of Sea, Transport, Tourism and Development,
o Ministry of Economy, Labour, Entrepreneurship, Labour department
o Ministry of Economy, Labour, Entrepreneurship, SME department
o State office for the management of state property,
o APIU
o Croatian Chamber of Commerce
o Lika-Senj county
o Zadar county
o Representatives of Lovinac and Jasenice municipalities
And they represent upper level of the partnership organization, so called strategic
alliance for Sv Brdo project implementation (High Level Project Committee). The
main role of the HLPC is to ensure expedient decision-making on issues that belong
to national government responsibilities, such as legislation, public investments,
concession procedures and the like.
Among others the task of project strategic alliance is to
o Provide national funding for public infrastructure related to the project;
o Provide national and/or international funding for the establishment and first
three years of operations of the SBMO
o Ensure design and government approval of concession procedure and
conditions;
o Ensure design and government approval of tender procedure and conditions
for private investor(s)
o Provide dedicated national funding for SME investment support for future
suppliers (crafts and SMEs) to the Sveto Brdo resort;
o Provide dedicated national funding for active labour market support and
education related to future employees of the Sveto Brdo resort or its
suppliers;

A key role is proposed for the The Sveto Brdo Resort Management Organisation
and project Partnership Committee as a second operative level of partnership
established.
County, the institutional capacity of which is to be strengthened through the
formation of a Project Management Unit (PMU) to oversee the implementation of
the ROP.

• Financing strategy for entire development covering area of Lovinac and Jasenice
municipalities – the Sv Brdo project is actually driver of the development and an

10
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

instrument to be used by both Lika-Senj County and Zadar county for local
development of Lovinac and Jasenice municipalities. The partnership should
develop a strategic and coherently structured development plan to a number of
donators, including the Croatian government, the EC, and a range of bilateral and
multilateral donors.
• Monitoring and evaluation procedures– during the implementation phase and as
well during exploitation and further development of Sv Brdo circumstances can
change, so an effective monitoring and evaluation plan has to be developed and
permanently used by partnership mechanisms established. Effective change can
only be undertaken if appropriate comprehensive monitoring and evaluation
procedures are put in place at the outset.
The future development of the CPT Sv. Brdo resort – using all the resources both existing
ones and ones developed by Sv Brdo project implementation, the partnership should also
take care about further development of the territories covered by Sv Brdo resort and
broader, and develop sound and affective strategy to be implemented. It will be a task of
newly established organization The Sveto Brdo Resort Management Organisation

The Sv Brdo Project Development Partnership

Beside the institutional arrangements (National ministries, County Assemblies of both the
counties, both Municipality Leaderships) as an strategic alliance and its leadership, the
“Project Development Partnership” is the most important body within the Sv Brdo
implementation system. The “Partnership for development” is a vehicle to set up as part of
the project implementation process.

This group is important because it provides continuity in content and in spirit. It is expected
that this group will safeguard the principles of transparency, partnership, concentration and
subsidiarity in project implementation and further development.
One of the tasks of the SBPDP is to establish appropriate management and coordination
procedures and ensure that procurement mechanisms are in place and in line with Croatian,
EU and other potential donor’s requirements. In addition the PMU will be in charge of
communicating effectively between the County Council Assembly, the Lika-Senj County
Development Partnership and the other stakeholders in the process.

The partnership is not elected but based on a set of regulations (see Annex 2) that were
proposed by the Croatian Ministry of Sea Tourism and Regional Development and adapted
to work well in the specific local conditions. The “Partnership” is a consultative group that
recommends or rejects proposals made under the project development strategy.
It does not take executive decisions, but makes recommendations in order to ensure
stronger and high quality stakeholder involvement.

The organization chart of Partnership for Sv, Brdo project implementation is shown on the
diagram below:

11
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Sea, Tourism,

Transport and Development, APIU, Ministry of
Culture, HAMAG, Croatian Chamber of Commerce,

Lovinac,
Sv. Brdo Resort Jasenice
Management Municipality
Organization

Inrests
Lika-Senj
groups County,
CSO, Project Zadar
partneship County
SMEs committee
Investors
Programme
Management
Unit

Development
Agencies
Project beneficiaries

INTEREST GROUPS

Stakeholders of social and economic development

The private sector is the main driver for the sustainable generation of wealth and jobs. This
is the most difficult task in the both counties and the biggest single challenge that need to
be addressed under Sv Brdo project implementation.

It needs help to achieve the level of development required by Sv Brdo resort functioning
and it requires responsible and effective government and regional support that enhances the
competitiveness of the local economy in the first place. There is urgent need to provide
funding for accelerate development of the private business sector.

A competitive economy then could be in the position to generate jobs based on the
competitiveness not on job creation programmes. Neither the private sector nor the
NGO/CBO sector are particularly well organised in the area of project implementation and
region as well, but both should be fully represented in the partnership and considered as
core partners in implementation of the project Sv Brdo even though they may not be fully
institutionalised at the moment.

12
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

The civil sector and citizens

Non governmental and community based organisations are important players in the
implementation of the project and could be valuable partners as they or if they have
experience of working in a project based environment.

They are hence a group of institutions that is actively leveraging funds into the regions
through investment that are not or no longer covered by government services. Their
presence should be strong in the partnership.

Organizational responsibilities of the partnership are shown in the table below:

Organisation
Lovinac Municipality
Elected representation and
executive organ of the
Municipality
Jasenice Municipality
Elected representation and
executive organ of the
Municipality
Ministry of Culture
(nature protection department)
Ministry of Sea, etc.
(tourism dept..)
Ministry of Economy
APIU-
Agency for trade and
investment promotion
HAMAG
PrivateSector
Is currently investing in
opportunities as they arise.
Little strategy and little
guidance available.
NGOs
Responsibility to
• Adaptation of the municipality's spatial plan;
• Construction of public infrastructure on the territory of the općina, needed
for the Sveto Brdo resort.
• Preparation of decisions related to the Sveto Brdo project for the općina
poglavarstvo and općina council.
• Adaptation of the municipality's spatial plan;
• Construction of public infrastructure on the territory of the općina, needed
for the Sveto Brdo resort.
• Preparation of decisions related to the Sveto Brdo project for the općina
poglavarstvo and općina council.
• Prepare the legal documents needed for the concession
• Prepare the legal documents needed for the tender
• Allocate sufficient MMTPR budget in the budget years 2008-2010 for
investment in general infrastructure related to the Sveto Brdo resort;
• Allocate sufficient MMTPR budget to the establishment and first three
years of operation of the SBMO
• Allocate sufficient MGORP budget in the budget years 2008-2010 for the
establishment and first three years of operations of a regional branch-
office of the HAMAG agency in the project area;
• Allocate sufficent MGORP budget in the budget years 2008-2010 for the
operation of the «Sveto Brdo Tourism Education Centre»
• Establish and maintain contacts with potential investors
• Help in preparation of documents to apply for location permit(s) for the
core investment area
• Help in preparation of the documents to submit an application for the
concession tender.
• Set up regional branch office in charge of support and development of
SMEs related to the Sveto Brdo Resort
• Key stakeholder responsible for creating wealth and sustainable jobs. Will
need to make its concerns heard and ensure that they are included in the
implementation through the partnership and other force
• Key stakeholder together with the private sector. Both are drives of the

13

Very weak in the areas of project
implementation
Very successful at drawing
additional funds in the region
despite enormous financial
constraints and little support
Other national Ministries
Are highest technical hierarchical
unit involved in project
implementation. Leads the
process through basic guidelines
and regulatory support
Lika-Senj and Zadar
Counties
Elected representation
and executive organ of
the county.
The Sveto Brdo Resort
Management
Organisation
A new organisation responsible
for the further development of the
CPT Sveto Brdo Resort. It will
later-on supervise the realisation
(construction activities) of the
project and in the end, it will be
in charge of resort management.
MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership
local economy and employment generators.
• Will need to create the platform for constructive dialogue between public
and NGO sector as well as between private sector and NGOs. Funding
strategy will need to be drawn up, debated and established.
• Co-ordination of the various funding streams to allow effective and
efficient interface between ROP based projects and outside funds. Overall
monitoring of performance and development of further policy guidelines
• Under-resourced to accomplish this task. Additional expertise required in
joint donor funding mechanisms, development policy management and
development monitoring and assessment.
• Ensure funding and production of an environmental impact assessment
and nature impact assessment study related to the investments in the core
area;
• Supervise the production by the Cards 2004 TA team of the idejno
rješenje for the core investment area;
• Act, on behalf of the direct beneficiaries Lovinac and Jasenice, as the
counterpart for the Cards 2004 technical assistance project;
• Prepare for the Ministry of Culture the procedures and conditions for the
planned concession and related tender;
• Act as Sveto Brdo business development support unit for the Lovinac and
Jasenica municipalities, using the support and staff of the Cards 2004 TA
team and –if feasible- of Hamag and HBOR;
• Act as Sveto Brdo human resources and labour market support unit for the
Lovinac and Jasenica municipalities, using the support and staff of the
Cards 2004 TA team and –if feasible- of the employment services in
Gospić and Zadar;
• Prepare and manage supporting projects in the fields of public housing,
general education, public health, social services etc. aiming at realising an
adequate social infrastructure for the increased population as a result of
the Sveto Brdo project.
14
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Other parties interested in the project

Naturally, the Sveto Brdo project is relevant to more organisations and institutions than
mentioned above. Their role, however, is more following than initiating. As a rule, they are
not expected to act pro-actively, but rather to react to requests from one or more of the main
stakeholders.

They are:

Nature Park Velebit HEP

Ministry of environment protection and
spatial planning
Ministry of Science, education and sport
Croatian Waters
Institute for employment Ličko-senjska
županija
Institute for employment Zadarska
županija
National Park Paklenica
Agricultural extension service Ličko-
senjska županija
CFCU
EC Delegation in Zagreb
Chamber of Economy Otočac
Chamber of Crafts Gospić
Hrvatski Telecom
HCR
Hrvatske Ceste Ličko-senjska županija
Hrvatske Ceste Zadarska županija
Central office for development strategy
and coordination of EU funds
Croatian Tourist Association
Agricultural extension service Zadarska
županija
National institute for nature protection
Chamber of Economy Zadar
Chamber of Crafts Zadar

15
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Annex 1. Partnerships examples

The Community Employment/Job Initiative Framework Agreement in Ireland

In Ireland, the conditions for the local implementation by the public employment service
(FÁS) of two schemes promoting re-insertion into the labour market through jobs
subsidies in the non-profit sector (Community Employment, CE, and Job Initiative, JI)
are defined by partnerships, and more precisely by their working group on employment.

The involvement of partnerships is embedded in a national policy framework, the CE/JI

Framework Agreement. The principle aim of the agreement is to ensure that the CE and
JI programmes meet the needs of disadvantaged areas, in terms of the type and the range
of projects supported and the mix of participants involved.

The framework agreement gives the working groups, comprising FÁS and the other
partners concerned, responsibility for setting detailed objectives, monitoring
performances, and exchanging information with regard to the schemes’ operations. The
working groups also develop their own plan in relation to the implementation of the
framework agreement. Additional flexibility under the framework agreement is provided
by a share of 10 per cent of the budget available to projects and participants who may not
meet the eligibility criteria of the schemes. The partnerships have no responsibility for the
appraisal of projects, nor for the delivery of the measure, which remain the responsibility
of FÁS.

The direct costs of the implementation of CE and JI in Ireland in 2000 were 403 million
Euro, which is significant compared to the funds available for partnerships to design and
implement their own activities (estimated at 23 million Euro in 1997). Defining the
targets for the CE and JI schemes is thus an important instrument for the partnerships in
addressing their own local agenda. This arrangement also fosters effective co-operation
between partners. The local public employment service obtains useful information that
aids effective implementation of the programme and helps achieve the objectives set by
the national headquarters. As it remains responsible for implementing the programme, the
partnership’s involvement does not appear as a threat to its area of responsibility.

Source: OECD (2001a)

16
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

National governments and partnerships

National governments have created, or supported, most of the networks of partnerships

that now exist in OECD countries. Through these networks, governments seek the co-
operation of partners from the private sector and civil society in the pursuit of various
objectives, from stimulating economic development to promoting social cohesion.

Ireland provides good illustrations of such initiatives, which have served as a model in
several European countries. Through successive steps, in 1991 and 1994, the government
launched a network of 38 partnerships aimed at improving social inclusion. It repeated
the experience in 2000, establishing development boards in all counties and cities of the
country, tasked with the design of economic, social and cultural development strategies.
Another country where partnerships have become a significant element of the
institutional framework is Austria. In each of the nine Länder, a partnership supported by
the federal government now co-ordinates employment measures and provides a platform
for co-operation between the main actors in this field, particularly the regional
governments, the public employment service, the social partners and non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).

The development councils of the pays promoted by the legislation in France, the regional
growth agreements in Sweden and the local strategic partnerships in the United Kingdom
are all a part of this trend. Partnerships also flourish in Australia, Canada, New Zealand
and the United States, where they have long been involved in diverse tasks ranging from
co-coordinating government policies in the labour market to pooling resources for
economic development. In the US, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 has led to the
creation of partnerships in charge of co-coordinating a broad range of policies, from
employment and social assistance to education, including those measures targeted on
youth. In Norway, a reform proposing the creation of regional partnerships responsible
for co-coordinating the implementation of policies, including those issued at national
level, is being debated by parliament.

17
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Partnerships or separated structures?

In the United States, the employer organisations, in particular local chambers of commerce, have
often encouraged non-government and community-based organisations to deliver employment
and training services to unemployed people and disadvantaged groups. In Cleveland, the
partnership for economic development led by an organisation of employers (Cleveland Growth
Association) supports the Center for Employment Training, which provides a wide range of
services to disadvantaged groups. Under the direct advice of the Growth Association, training is
specialised and designed to meet the needs of enterprises in the area. In Chicago, a group of
business companies (Chicagoland Business Partners) supports the provision of employment and
training services by DePaul University, which is linked to a number of community-based
organisations in connection with disadvantaged groups.

Thus, in these areas, the services delivered by private/non-profit partnerships are supplied through
a structure separate from public services. Two (or more) service structures are in operation at the
same time despite efforts deployed to gather all services supplied in one single location through a
one-stop system (under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998).

The existence of two separate networks limits the scope for greater direct involvement of public
services in matters related to disadvantaged groups to the extent that other partners are developing
a specialisation in these fields. These initiatives contribute to the relative isolation of the public
services and weaken their capacity to integrate policies and services in view of improving the
effectiveness of their action. Public services have in certain cases lost ground in their own field of
expertise, as the objectives they seek to achieve are also being pursued independently by the
private and non-profit sectors operating through separate networks. In Cleveland, one of the main
aims of the Growth Association is to enhance the efficiency of the labour market, typically the
main goal of the public employment service. As part of its mission, the partnership helps local
firms to find workers and promotes the upgrading of workers’ skills, with little involvement of
the public service.

Such degrees of duplication and segmentation in activities have also been observed in Ireland,
where a network of local employment services has been set up under the supervision of the area-
based partnerships, and in Southern Italy, where the employment services have little involvement
in partnerships, even if most partnerships voice needs in the training area. As a result, many
partnerships attempt to carry out activities to upgrade the skills of low-qualified workers and to
improve job matching independently from the public employment service.

Source: OECD (2001a)

18
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Spatial consistency of objectives: the Tyrol example

Spatial consistency of objectives can be illustrated by an example of objectives pursued
across levels of organisation. In Tyrol (Austria), the regional government has integrated
in its regional development strategy the objectives formulated by a partnership bringing
together three districts at sub-regional level and inspired by the situation found at
municipal level. The objective of “strengthening the local supply chain” is consistently
referred to in the economic strategy designed at each of four different levels: (i) the Land
of Tyrol, (ii) the partnership of the region of Tiroler Oberland und Außerfern which
covers a part of the Land, (iii) the district (Imst) covered by that partnership, and (iv) in
one of the municipalities located in that district, Tarrenz.

Spatial consistency of objectives has thus promoted a bottom-up approach in policy

design, and reduced the risk of inconsistency between economic development actions
carried out across levels. It stimulates co-operation and commitment across
administrative levels to the extent where activities executed at a given level help achieve
goals at others. From a geographical perspective, this increases horizontal co-operation,
as other areas may become more aware of the objectives pursued by their neighbours, due
to consolidation and greater visibility, and identify them as relevant for their own area.
Neighbouring areas are then given the opportunity to assess whether the work of
partnerships has had any impact on the design of government policies at higher
administrative levels. In Tyrol, districts not covered by the partnership have asked to
implement some of the projects carried out in Oberland und Außerfern.

Source: OECD (2001a)

Separating the partnership functions in Italy

Some countries have separated the tasks of strategic planning and appraising projects. In
Italy, neither the board of directors nor the working groups of partnerships (territorial
pacts) are involved in the approval of projects and the allocation of funds. The board
agrees on a number of strategic objectives and on a series of criteria for the selection of
projects to support. Through a tendering procedure, an accredited bank receives the
proposals, ranks the different projects following the criteria and selects a number of
projects depending on the funds available.

This separation of responsibilities is conducive to good governance. Public accountability

is enhanced as the beneficiaries of the projects selected are not involved in the approval
of projects, limiting the scope for conflicts of interests. Cohesion among partners
improves, because the board is not responsible for finding agreement on competing
proposals; moreover, they are allowed to propose projects themselves through the
tendering procedure, and this helps sustain their commitment. In addition, greater
division of labour promotes greater efficiency in management. It can be argued that, with
business projects analysed by financial institutions, the right skills are used for the right
tasks.

Source: OECD (2001a)

19
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Annex 2: The Regional Partnership Committee Regulations 6

I – GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1. Establishment

( 1 ) In accordance with the principles and standards of the European Union, and with the
purpose of designing and carrying out the Regional Operational Programme (hereafter the
ROP), the Regional Partnership Committee (hereafter the RPC) is hereby established in the
Lika-Senj County. Its duties are as follows:
(1.1) to call together the private, public, and the civil sector in the county area, and
to strengthen their joint co-operation, with the purpose of defining and
accomplishing the common vision of the future in the County;
(1.2) to participate, as a consultative body, in preparing the ROP;
(1.3) to participate, as a consultative and supervisory body, in carrying out the ROP;
(2 ) During the phase of designing the ROP, the County has set up the RPC as one unique
body. The county Working Group (at the operative level charged to design the ROP) is to
consult the RPC during all major phases of designing the ROP, such as designing the basic
analysis and development strategy, and establishing priorities, measures and budgets.
During that phase, the structure and the body of the RPC is not to be strictly formalised.
(3 ) During the phase of carrying on the ROP, the structure and the body of the RPC must
be clearly and formally defined, and in accordance with the requests of, and accepted by, all
partners. The County shall co-ordinate the work of the RPC. In this process, the Project
Management Unit (hereafter the PMU) in the County shall provide technical support to the
RPC.
(4 ) Members of the RPC are elected from the county area.
(5 ) Members of the RPC shall not receive any financial compensation for their work.
(6 ) Meetings of the RPC are public.

Article 2. The role of the RPC

The Regional Partnership Committee (RPC) has an advisory role. Its recommendations
should be taken into consideration during all activities / projects of the ROP, that are co-
financed from the national and regional government, the European Union, (or from other
international donators within the ROP). The design of, and revisions and updates to, the
ROP should be carried out through consultation with the Regional Partnership Committee
(the RPC). Lika-Senj County Regional Operational Programme 2005 – 2010

6
Regional Operational Plan Lika Senj County, 2005 - 2010

20
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

II – THE BODY AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE RPC

Article 3. The body of the RPC

(1 ) The RPC is based on the equality principle. No one owns the Partnership, and no
organisation is allowed to impose itself as dominant. Members of the Partnership should be
regarded equal in co-operating, they must have equal influence on the decisions, and in
general they must hold equal power in the Partnership.
(2 ) With regard to the above-mentioned principles, the body of the Partnership should
reflect different interests regarding the social economic development of the County, and
therefore it is important that different partners with different views and different
institutional goals are represented in the Partnership.
In accordance with the aforesaid, the RPC of the Lika-Senj County shall consist of
members nominated and elected at the first Regional Conference, and of members elected
by subsequent decisions of the RPC as representatives of six different interest groups,
namely industry and economy, rural development, public administration, communal
infrastructure, civil society and social infrastructure, as well as three other sectors of
society:
- private sector,
- public sector (administration), and
- civil sector (associations).

Thus, the RPC of the Lika-Senj County consists of representatives of the following
institutions:

No. Institution

1. Port Management, Senj

2. Town of Otočac
3. GospićMusic Festival
4. Croatian Employment Agency, subsidiary office, Gospić
5. Business Development Centre, town of Senj
6. Croatian Chamber of Commerce, Otočac
7. The Home for Old and Disabled Persons, Udbina
8. Eco-humanists League
9. Serbian Democratic Forum, Lika subsidiary
10. Association 'Together', Senj
11. Plitvička Jezera Municipality
12. National Park 'Plitvička Jezera'
13. Vrhovine Municipality
14. Secondary School, Otočac
15. Donji Lapac Municipality
16. Women Group, Donji Lapac
17. Lovinac Municipality
18. Agricultural Co-operative 'Lovinac'

21
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

19. Croatian Craftsmanship Chamber, Gospić

20. Advisory Service of the Croatian Agricultural Institute
21. Tourist Association of the Lika-Senj County
22. County Association of Blind and Poor-sighted Persons
23. Velebit Association 'Kuterevo'
24. Udbina Municipality
25. Karlobag Municipality
26. PerušićMunicipality
27. Brinje Municipality
28 Town of Gospić
29. Town of Novalja

(3) Members of the RPC from their own ranks elect the Co-ordinator / President of the
RPC, and his/her Deputy. The Co-ordinator and his/her Deputy are elected by consensus,
and if not possible, then by voting.
(4) The body of institutions/organisations presented in the RPC can be altered. Each change
must be carried out in accordance with Chapter V of this Book of Regulations.
( 5 ) During the phase of designing the ROP, the Regional Partnership Committee shall
appoint its
Secretary who will keep minutes, while other technical support to the Regional Partnership
Committee will provide the core Working Group assigned to design the ROP. During the
phase of carrying on the ROP, representatives of the Project Management Unit will act as a
technical secretariat for the RPC.

Article 4. Formation and the body of Thematic Working Groups (TWG)

( 1 ) If the RPC decides to form working groups (when it is necessary), each TWG should
include all the partners that are in connection with the theme being discussed at the
meetings. The body of each TWG shall be established by the decision of the RPC, while
the TWG shall elect its Coordinator/President from its own ranks. If the TWG in its work
needs professional help for specific problems, it is possible to include in its work some of
renowned experts in the field, even though they have not been presented to the RPC.
( 2 ) The Project Management Unit shall act as a technical secretariat for the TWG in
accordance with Article 10 of these Regulations.
( 3 ) The TWG in principle can be formed for the needs of the following areas (for
examples):
A. Promotion of human resources and social services;
B. Economic development;
C. Infrastructure and environmental protection.

22
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Article 5. Formation and the body of so-called the Ad Hoc Committee (AHC)

( 1 ) Members of the RPC can form so-called Ad Hoc Committees, in accordance with the
needs (for example, to analyse a specific project or a non-returnable form of aid, e.g. a
grant scheme, that within the framework of the ROP have to be submitted to a particular
donator for financing), and for the needs of other working tasks of the RPC (for example,
the revision of the ROP, public relations, and the like).
( 2 ) In that case, the RPC arranges the body of the Ad Hoc Committee and elects its
members.
Any institution or organisation that has a representative in the RPC can require from the
Coordinator/President to be included in the work of the AHC.
( 3 ) Should the need arise for a specific expert, in the work of the AHC can also be
included members that have not been presented to the RPC.
( 4 ) The PMU shall have the role of the technical secretariat for the AHC in accordance
with Article 10 of this Book of Regulations.

III – MAJOR TASKS OF THE RPC

Article 6. Responsibilities of the RPC in phases of designing (programming) and

carrying on the ROP

( 1 ) Responsibilities of the RPC during the phase of designing the ROP are as follows:
a) To adopt, after consultations with the TWG, drafts of program documents
prepared by the County Working Group and by hired consultants, during all phases
of designing the ROP: basic analysis, development strategy, priorities, measures,
and budget;
b) To submit to the Governor the list of defined priorities that should be chosen, and
of goal that should be achieved in order to carry on (adjust) the ROP;
c) To propose to the Governor the measures that are to be included in the ROP;
d) To adopt contingent changes, annexes, and revisions to the ROP, and to submit
these to the County Assembly for adoption;
e) To justify and advocate its suggestions.
( 2 ) Responsibilities of the RPC during the phase of carrying on the ROP are as follows:
a) To suggest the Governor projects that should be financed, and grant schemes that
have to be carried out;
b) To supervise the implementation of the financial program (of all project and of
all grant schemes that are being carried on within its framework).

23
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

All official suggestions of the Regional Partnership Committee must be argued in a

written form.

Article 7. Responsibilities of the TWG in phases of designing (programming) and

carrying on the ROP

( 1 ) Responsibilities of the TWG in the phase of designing the ROP are the following:
a) To present to the RPC the list of county needs identified after the process of
consultation;
b) To participate in carrying out studies and research, with the aim to better
understanding the problems in the County;
c) To design drafts of programme documents together with engaged consultants;
d) To suggest to the RPC measures that will be included in the ROP, and which will
match the defined needs;
e) To suggest to the RPC established criteria for choosing a projects;
f) To justify and advocate its suggestions.
( 2 ) Responsibilities of the TWG during the implementation phase are as follows:
a) To analyse, based on established criteria for choosing, projects and grant
schemes, and to suggest to the RPC those that can be financed and implemented;
b) If and when necessary, and within the scope of their thematic area, to help the
RPC in supervising the implementation of financial projects.

Article 8. Responsibilities of the AHC during the implementation phase

The RPC establishes the responsibilities of the AHC in the implementation phase.

Article 9. Responsibilities of the Coordinator/President of the RPC

a) To convene meetings of the RPC and TWG;

b) To propose agenda for meetings, and to establish working materials for meetings;
c) To preside in and conduct meetings, and to promote consensus in the decision-making
process;
d) To sign documents prepared by the RPC and TWG, as well as the minutes of the held
meetings.

24
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Article 10. Responsibilities of the technical secretariat, that is of the Project

Management Unit

a) To prepare and distribute documents and materials that are necessary to convene the
meetings of the RPC and TWG;
b) To participate in the meetings of the RPC and TWG;
c) To combine and distribute propositions and commentaries of the members of the RPC
and TWG;
d) To prepare minutes of the meetings;
e) To deliver minutes of the meetings to all members for comment and consensus;
f) To provide other technical support to the RPC upon its request.

IV - ACTING OF THE REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPCOMMITTEE AND THE

TWG

Article 11. Acting of the Regional Partnership Committee and the TWG

All detailed operative activities in connection with the work of the RPC and TWG, such as
the frequency of meeting convocations, non-attendance, and other issues, will be
established by the members of the RPC and PMU during their joint meetings.

V - FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 12. Adoption of, and Amendments to the Regulations

The regulations shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of votes. The number of voters is
equal to the number of institutions and organisations presented in the RPC.
Any changes to the adopted Regulations should be made only by a two-thirds majority of
all the members of the RPC, who have the right to vote. The number of voters is equal to
the number of institutions and organisations that have had their representatives in the RPC
until the day when the changes have been made.

25
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

Annex 3: Vienna Action Statement on Partnerships

I Preamble

The Vienna Action Statement on Partnerships (the “Action Statement”) was prepared by
the Forum Committee of Experts, which comprises selected partnership practitioners with
in-depth knowledge of partnership working. It was amended and agreed by participants of
the 3rd Annual Meeting of the OECD LEED Forum on Partnerships and Local Governance
(the “Forum”) on 1-2 March 2007 in Vienna. The participants of the meeting included
partnership managers and stakeholders from the local/regional level, national partnership
coordinators, representatives from government departments and organisations interested in
the development and promotion of partnership working, and academic researchers.

The Action Statement aims to enhance governance by improving the dialogue and co-
operation between policy makers, and between policy makers and other stakeholders, at the
local, regional and national levels, in turn fostering economic development, social
cohesion, environmental sustainability and quality of life.
This Action Statement will be reviewed by the members of the Forum every three years in
light of the results achieved through its implementation, with the next review date being
March 2010.

II Background: the role of partnerships

The partnerships which together make up the OECD LEED Forum on Partnerships and
Local Governance are governance frameworks which allow local and regional actors to
work together to develop a joint strategy and implement measures relevant to a specific
territory. These partnerships primarily focus on employment, social issues and economic
development.

Partnerships are becoming increasingly common in OECD countries as a governance tool

to: link up policies at the local level, connect local actors with other governance levels,
stimulate initiatives, increase effectiveness and efficiency in the use of resources and
enhance policy outcomes.

Partnerships have traditionally attempted to work within the existing policy framework,
tailoring programmes to local needs. However, more and more partnerships across the
OECD are now seeking to play a broader role, influencing the development of policy itself.
Partnerships are thus endeavouring to become an integral part of both policy design and
delivery, at all governance levels.

26
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

The Forum underlines the importance of this process, believing that local partnerships can
add considerable value to the policy development process through:

• Bringing together diverse local partners and policy areas, and facilitating the
development of cross-cutting perspectives and integrated approaches to multi-
dimensional problems.

• Improving vertical communication between policy makers from different

governance levels.

• Supporting the better adaptation of policies to local circumstances, needs and

opportunities.

• Identifying the potential conflicts and synergies which exist between different
policies.

• Providing leadership, building trust and consensus on priorities.

• Integrating the concerns of civil society and the private sector into strategic
planning exercises.

• Sharing good practice, which has been tested on the ground, and offering know-
how from practical experience on what works and what does not.

III. Actions/ Statement

The participants of the 3rd Forum Meeting in Vienna recognise that in order for
partnerships to contribute to the policy development process fully, they need to have a
strong impact on:
• multi-level collaboration: the involvement and consultation of stakeholders
(particularly policy makers and social partners) from supra-national, national,
regional and local levels; and
• cross-sector collaboration: the involvement of stakeholders from various economic
sectors/branches, businesses and their representative organisations, governmental
and non-governmental organisations, and broad policy fields including labour
market, education, economic development, environmental and social policy.

In order to achieve such multi-level and cross-sector collaboration, partnerships require a

receptive culture among policy makers in regional, national and supra-national government
institutions.
If the value of local partnerships’ input to policy making is to be accepted, there will be
implications for governments as well as for partnerships themselves. These include:

27
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

• the need for government policies which are flexible and adaptable to change;
• the need for channels of communication within multi-level governance
arrangements that are open to inputs from the bottom up; and
• the need for a recognition within the policy process of local diversity and the value
of evidence from practice.

In addition, on the side of partnerships there is a need to:

• ensure transparency and accountability of partnership structures;

• work on the basis of sound local knowledge and expertise, making reference to
local data and indicators;
• demonstrate a strategic approach which goes beyond the delivery of projects and
programmes and can adapt to changes in a globalised economy;
• demonstrate capacity to enhance policy outcomes through appropriate monitoring
and evaluation; and
• network partnerships at the national level and learn lessons form international
experience to ensure efficient dialogue with government.

The participants of the 3rd Forum Meeting in Vienna therefore invite governments and
partnerships to work together with the aim to:

(1) Ensure flexibility in policy implementation. This means ensuring that the legal
framework, the performance management process and the allocation of budgets is
sufficiently flexible to allow government agencies and public services to work closely
with local actors from other policy areas on the development and implementation of
effective area-based strategies.

(2) Establish robust communication mechanisms through which partnerships can

influence and comment upon policy developments which will impact upon their areas.
This will require government departments to improve their internal communication
links and establish mechanisms for feedback from their representatives within
partnerships. Governments should also encourage social partners and civil society
organisations to adopt similar mechanisms. Dialogue with partnership networks at
national level should be strengthened.

(3) Better align policy objectives. In implementing strategies, partnerships often face
the challenge of inconsistent policy objectives set by different government departments.
In order to facilitate greater coherence of policies and programmes, on-going co-
operation and co-ordination within government, and between government officials and
external actors is necessary to ensure that everybody is working towards common goals.

28
 MTR Sv Brdo: Development Partnership

(4) Establish strong evaluation tools for measuring added value. Though many
partnerships frequently report on project results, the achievements of partnerships as a
whole, and their overall added value as a governance tool receives less attention. In
order to evaluate the contribution of partnerships more comprehensively, it is
recommended that holistic evaluation tools be developed that assess the added value of
partnership collaboration itself, and not just individual project outcomes.

(5) Build the capacities of local, regional and national stakeholders to work effectively
in partnership through training and development. This will include equipping
representatives from government, civil society and the private sector with the skills
needed to participate in and co-manage collaborative activities and partnerships.

(6) Provide a secure financial base. A solid, sustainable financial basis for operation is
key to enabling partnerships to take a long-term view on local issues and problems and
contribute fully to better policy outcomes. Such financial security needs to be linked to
good performance. This will normally require the possibility of renewable multi-annual
funding that covers both partnership management (core costs) and specific activity
costs.

Vienna, 2 March 2007

29