• esem@esem.org.mk
  • Call Us: +389 (0) 2 3298 295; 3298 296
  • St. Maksim Gorki no. 20/1-4, Skopje, Republic of N. Macedonia

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND GOVERNANCE

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND GOVERNANCE

Fiscal transparency contributes to improving collaboration with the public sector, amplifies citizens’ voices in decision-making processes that affect them, and ensures unrestricted access to and enjoyment of citizens’ social and economic rights.

Each year, through the “Fiscal Transparency Macedonia and ESE” campaign, we provide more than 1,000 pieces of information, including educational materials, videos, and debates, to raise public awareness about the importance and benefits of fiscal transparency. This campaign emphasizes the need to increase the current level of transparency in public institutions, reaching over 500,000 citizens annually.

Since 2020, we have been building the capacities of more than 20 CSOs from Southeast Europe by teaching them methodologies for assessing transparency and accountability, enhancing citizen involvement, conducting budget analysis, and advocating for change.

We established a network of civil society organizations focused on the Partnership for Open Government (POV), ensuring their inclusion in the consultation process during the preparation of action plans. In addition, we have trained over 40 representatives from both public institutions and CSOs. Due to our exceptional commitment, we are now part of the European group of leaders promoting citizen participation.

ABOUT THE QUESTION

The low level of fiscal transparency is a global issue, and the Republic of North Macedonia has not been spared. Over the past five years, fiscal transparency has increasingly been recognized as a key priority and necessity for the state.

 

There are numerous barriers preventing citizens from effectively monitoring the work of institutions. There are no efficient and effective mechanisms in place for monitoring budget execution or evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of government policies. Furthermore, the way public procurement is carried out lacks sufficient transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency, and it does not always ensure equal access or fair treatment for participants.

 

In the past seven years, there has been an increase in the number of documents and information published by institutions on their websites. However, this increase has not resulted in continuous progress or consistency in publication. Generally, institutions provide data for only 30% of the basic program and budget documents. Regarding reactive transparency, institutions tend to provide more information in response to submitted requests for access to public information rather than proactively making it available to the public. Compliance with the Law on Free Access to Public Information is only partial.

WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT THIS ISSUE?

We are working to increase public awareness of the importance of fiscal transparency and the need for priority-based budgeting

We are working to increase public awareness of the importance of fiscal transparency and the need for priority-based budgeting. Specifically, we help citizens exercise their right to access public information and facilitate communication between citizens and public institutions in North Macedonia. To address this need, in 2014, we launched a thematic website—www.fiskalnatransparentnost.org.mk—which includes an electronic platform for submitting requests for access to public information from all public institutions in North Macedonia, as well as filing complaints for violations of this right. The purpose of the electronic form is to simplify the submission process for interested citizens and enable them to receive faster responses from public institutions, thus testing the responsiveness of institutions and their willingness to share information with the general public.

More specifically, we educate citizens about the procedure for exercising their right to free access to public information

More specifically, we educate citizens about the procedure for exercising their right to free access to public information by providing an electronic form for submitting requests and complaints regarding violations of their right to access public information. We also work to ensure that all interested parties can monitor the fiscal performance of the Government of North Macedonia and actively participate in discussions regarding the implementation of policies that aim to advance fiscal transparency. To support this effort, we developed a database of open fiscal data that offers a simplified, systematized, and analytical presentation of fiscal and budgetary data. This database is regularly updated with information obtained through our monitoring of the Ministry of Health’s preventive programs.

Through www.fiskalnatransparentnost.org.mk, citizens are informed about the obligations of public institutions and their rights under the law

Through www.fiskalnatransparentnost.org.mk, citizens are informed about the obligations of public institutions and their rights under the law. The website also provides access to the latest relevant literature and materials on fiscal transparency, access to information, and participation in decision-making (available in both Macedonian and English), as well as current developments in North Macedonia and worldwide.

The campaign for the promotion of fiscal transparency, titled "Fiscal Transparency Macedonia," which we launched in 2015

The campaign for the promotion of fiscal transparency, titled “Fiscal Transparency Macedonia,” which we launched in 2015, is part of our broader effort to raise citizens’ awareness of their rights and opportunities to access information, participate in the creation, adoption, and implementation of fiscal policies, and place pressure on public institutions to meet their transparency and accountability obligations. As part of the campaign, we prepare educational videos, materials, and e-learning modules for CSOs from North Macedonia and the wider region, as well as organize online debates and other events.

We continuously evaluate the level of fiscal transparency and accountability in public institutions

We continuously evaluate the level of fiscal transparency and accountability in public institutions. Since 2013, we have been assessing the responsiveness (reactivity) and proactiveness of public institutions in sharing and publishing information about their budgetary and programmatic work. We do this by applying an established methodology for measurement and evaluation. We assess proactive transparency by reviewing the availability and form of publication of 16 key program and budget documents on the websites of 25 public institutions. These documents include strategic plans, annual work programs, proposed budgets, adopted budgets, proposed and adopted budget amendments, final accounts, audit reports, simplified budget versions (citizen budgets), contact details for public information officers, and lists of public information.

On the other hand, we evaluate reactive transparency in 68 public institutions, focusing on five parameters

On the other hand, we evaluate reactive transparency in 68 public institutions, focusing on five parameters: the number of complete responses received in a timely manner, the number of incomplete responses, the number of rejected or halted requests for public information, the number of cases in which institutions failed to respond, and the average response time for requests for access to public information (in both regular and appeal procedures).

It is important to note that we monitor the operations of only those institutions that fall under our regular activities within the budget monitoring and analysis program

It is important to note that we monitor the operations of only those institutions that fall under our regular activities within the budget monitoring and analysis program. These institutions implement programs such as the Program for Active Protection of Mothers and Children, the Program for Early Detection of Malignant Diseases, the Program for Systematic Examinations of Students and Pupils, and the Program for Rare Diseases. We also monitor institutions responsible for decision-making aimed at improving the health of women and children in North Macedonia. Therefore, the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Public Information is monitored and evaluated in all health centers (32), all public health centers (10), and specific clinics, including the clinical hospitals in Bitola, Shtip, and Tetovo, the general hospital in Strumica, the Special Hospital for Gynecology and Obstetrics in Chair, and the University Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics. National institutions such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy are also monitored.

The findings and evidence provided by public institutions, civil society organizations

The findings and evidence provided by public institutions, civil society organizations, and the media at the national level are used as relevant sources of information to present the situations and progress of public institutions under the Law on Free Access to Public Information. These findings initiate and drive reforms in North Macedonia’s public system. We advocate for improved fiscal transparency through established mechanisms for monitoring the fulfillment of international obligations and standards in fiscal operations, including the preparation of “shadow reports.”

Since 2014, we have participated in the Partnership for Open Government process at both national and international levels

Since 2014, we have participated in the Partnership for Open Government process at both national and international levels, working on identifying obstacles within the public system that had not been previously recognized as necessary or prioritized. Through active participation in this process, we encourage the government to adopt more proposals for improving access to information, increasing citizen participation, and enhancing access to public services. We are also involved in co-creating and monitoring the implementation of some of the activities adopted by the government under this initiative.

Since 2020, we have worked on organizing the process of creating action plans for the POV and consultations with citizens and NGOs

Since 2020, we have worked on organizing the process of creating action plans for the POV and consultations with citizens and NGOs, organizing the work of the bodies formed within the framework of the process, setting indicators and mechanisms for measuring progress, and more. We have also been working to establish and operate a Network of CSOs to focus on POV, and since 2023, we have been co-chairing the POV Council. At the international level, we strive to be a key organization in this process, providing information on the country’s progress, developing methods for citizen participation, and building the capacities of other CSOs.

 

In addition to this work, we are building coalitions and strengthening the capacities of other national and regional civil society organizations in this area. Together, we implement joint actions to initiate change.

MEDIA

Action plans for the Open Government Partnership should be aimed at improving citizens' lives through the use of various tools and digitization

On December 15, 2022, in Pristina, Kosovo, a panel discussion entitled “Civil Policies at the Center – The Role of the Civil Sector in the Process of Creating National Action Plans for the Open Government Partnership (OGP)” was held. As one of the key organizations involved in the OGP process in North Macedonia, we participated in this panel discussion, addressing the major challenges we face in setting the national agenda for OGP and involving various stakeholders in the creation and implementation of OGP action plans. We particularly focused on the inefficiency in the implementation of OGP in the country, which is largely due to insufficient cooperation between civil society organizations and their collaboration with the government. We also highlighted that too much emphasis in creating OGP plans is placed on developing digital products, rather than using digitization as a tool to improve citizens’ lives. Ultimately, we concluded that we have not yet reached the stage where the initiative can be self-sustaining and independent of the engagement of several key civil society organizations. In future consultations, we hope to see citizens involved directly, rather than primarily civil society organizations.

 

Link to our statement: https://meta.mk/debata-gragjanite-da-bidat-vo-fokusot-na-akciskite-planovi-preku-digitalizacijata/ , published on 15.12.2022.

The law on budgets should guide budget processes that begin and end with the needs of citizens rather than politics

In December 2020, the government submitted to the Assembly of North Macedonia a proposal to amend and supplement the Law on Budgets, which was then opened for public consultation. As an organization that monitors and participates in the national budget process, we keep track of budget policy changes to prevent retrogressive steps and propose measures that advance the process and overcome identified challenges.

 

The draft law on budgets retains the old method of top-down decision-making. The Ministry of Finance continues to set budget limits for each user without hearing the needs first, and there are no indicators to measure the fiscal impact of budget expenditures on citizens. While budget planning offers citizens an opportunity to participate, the process and methods for submitting proposals and ensuring their inclusion are not clearly defined. This limits parliamentary discussion and, generally, the level of public debate surrounding the budget, ultimately hindering the transparency process.

In response, ESE, in collaboration with three civil society organizations, proposed several changes:

  • Preparing budgets based on citizens’ needs and priorities,
  • Budget expenditure limits set by the Ministry of Finance should be determined by the needs of various sectors,
  • Improving program budgeting,
  • Introducing indicators to measure the fiscal impact of expenditures on citizens,
  • Clarifying economic and functional classifications,
  • Explaining in detail how citizens can propose ideas and engage in budget planning,
  • Increasing opportunities for discussion in the Assembly and municipal councils,
  • Strengthening public discussion around the budget,
  • Granting the Fiscal Council decision-making powers rather than just an advisory role,
  • Introducing new methodologies and mechanisms that build upon previous frameworks,
  • Acknowledging the State Audit Office’s recommendations and ensuring public institutions address its findings.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmHiCaLHTcE, published on 12.12.2020.

The transparency of public procurement in healthcare is decreasing year by year

In November 2020, we published the third report in a series of reports on monitoring public procurement procedures in North Macedonia’s public health sector. We shared the findings and recommendations from the report with relevant institutions and journalists working in health and social protection.

 

The monitoring revealed that public health institutions lack procurement plans that would ensure continuity in their operations. Most public health institutions sign procurement contracts and allocate funds for goods, services, and works during the first and fourth quarters of the year, based on fund availability rather than actual needs. We identified significant deviations between the planned and actual contract values. Additionally, the level of transparency in publishing information about public procurement procedures has significantly decreased over the years. Year by year, the competitiveness and availability of public procurement opportunities for various companies diminish, while the concentration of contracts awarded to a small number of companies increases.

 

We believe it is crucial to establish a practice of creating annual procurement plans based on a thorough analysis of institutional and patient needs. It is vital to ensure these procurement plans are continuously implemented throughout the year so they do not impact access to essential health services. Strengthening the capacities of those responsible for implementing public procurement, and providing the public with timely and accessible information in an understandable format, is also important. Institutions in the public health sector should publish all relevant information regarding public procurement procedures. It is recommended to introduce a selection system for companies providing public procurement in healthcare based on criteria that maximize the results and impact of public procurement. Additionally, performance indicators should be introduced to assess the efficiency of public procurement, serving as a foundation for future procurement planning. It is also recommended to establish evaluation and selection criteria that prevent pre-definition of public procurements by potential bidders, thus encouraging broader participation by companies from within and outside the country.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_2v0wQGRbU , published on 29.11.2020.

Three-quarters of public institutions do not publish data on their budget and program operations, and more than half violate the Law on Free Access to Public Information

On the occasion of World Access to Information Day – “I Have the Right to Know,” we published and promoted the results of an evaluation assessing the level of reactive and proactive transparency among public institutions monitored by ESE.

 

The results reveal that public institutions are more likely to provide information about their financial operations when it is specifically requested through the Law on Free Access to Public Information, rather than publishing the information proactively via their communication channels. In 2019, only the Government of North Macedonia and the Ministry of Finance, out of 25 monitored institutions, published more than 40% of the mandatory information/documents related to their program and budget operations. As a result, they earned the status of partially transparent institutions. The remaining 23 institutions either did not publish any information or only a minimal amount. Additionally, in 2022, 54 out of 89 institutions were found to be either non-compliant, reactive, or only partially compliant with the Law on Free Access to Public Information.

 

We believe that the Agency for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information and the Minister in charge of Communications, Accountability, and Transparency should implement a detailed assessment of why institutions are not acting in accordance with the Law. Based on the findings, a plan of action should be prepared to address the issue. We also recommend investigating why institutions publish more information about their plans than the results achieved. As a short-term measure, institutions should publish key documents such as the budget calendar, pre-budget statement, civil budget, budget proposal, adopted budget (in an open format), budget amendments, semi-annual budget execution reports, and audit reports.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySMuFreOYqM, published on 22.10.2022.

The planning and spending of the economic measures remain a mystery to the public even after six months

In response to the economic crisis caused by COVID-19, between March and October 2020, the government adopted four packages of economic measures aimed at supporting businesses and citizens. These measures involved substantial spending of public funds, but without sufficient transparency. To evaluate how these economic packages were planned and implemented, we conducted an analysis of the preparation, adoption, and execution of these measures and prepared a report. This report served as the foundation for our advocacy efforts before relevant institutions, calling for greater transparency in budgetary spending, more citizen involvement in the preparation of economic measures, and ensuring that the implementation of these measures does not infringe on other citizens’ rights.

 

Over the past six months, we have observed the promotion of broad consultations for the preparation of the four economic packages, involving professionals from various fields. However, several critical questions remain unanswered: Who participated in these consultations? What was discussed? What proposals were made? On what basis were decisions taken? Were citizens consulted at all? These are among the many unanswered questions. As of October 5, 2020, the government, along with the Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, the Ministry of Economy, the Agency for Youth and Sports, and the Agency for Employment and Cultural Activities, had spent 163.4 million euros on the implementation of the three packages of economic measures. This amount represents 14% of the approved expenditures, exceeding realized revenues by 11%. The government spent the largest portion—141 million euros—on 104,000 payments related to wage assistance for companies and payment cards for the purchase of domestic products. Additionally, an entity listed as “Unknown Payer – NN” made 129 payments totaling 17.1 million euros from the budget item “Purchase of other equipment.” By contrast, the least amount—413,000 euros—was spent on supporting artists and issuing tourism vouchers.

 

Despite this significant spending, the extent of the implementation of the economic measures remains unclear, especially concerning the amount of funds spent and the specific beneficiaries of each measure. The information available to the public is insufficient to determine these details.

 

This raises critical questions: With such large amounts of money spent, a continuous decline in the economy, and increasing national debt, what real benefits are citizens receiving? By the end of July, 7% of surveyed households reported that they lacked the means to buy food and were starving—an increase of three percentage points compared to February of the same year. Furthermore, the number of employed individuals fell by 6 percentage points in July compared to February, particularly among those employed on fixed-term contracts. Many citizens, especially those working in beauty salons, schools, and maintenance services, experienced drastic reductions in wages. However, workers in the health sector, justice, construction, and information technology industries did not report significant wage losses.

 

Thus far, the economic packages, as they have been designed and implemented, have not yielded the desired improvements for citizens. It is crucial to conduct an in-depth analysis of the population to better understand their specific needs and challenges. Based on this analysis, targeted economic packages should be developed and implemented in a phased approach. The most critical factor is ensuring that these economic measures, along with ongoing borrowing, do not infringe on citizens’ enjoyment of other human rights or limit their access to essential public services.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNkKmGfHWvA, published on 21.10.2020.

At least 100,000 citizens do not have access to one or more basic health services, and at least 403,000 citizens face significant financial difficulties in obtaining health care

In April 2020, on the occasion of World Health Day, we promoted the findings of our analysis on the impact of macroeconomic policy changes on citizens’ access to health services. Health indicators, which serve as a standard for measuring a country’s development, reveal that in North Macedonia, at least 100,000 citizens lack access to one or more basic health services, while at least 403,000 citizens face significant financial difficulties due to out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. This shows that citizens’ health is influenced by a variety of factors beyond their direct control.

 

In recent years, the government has implemented a series of reforms aimed at expanding the fiscal base, which, in theory, should allow for greater revenue flow into the state budget, foster fiscal consolidation, and introduce populist measures affecting public health and other state expenditures. Additionally, the government has pursued economic liberalization, attracted foreign direct investments, and encouraged domestic companies to raise wages. These initiatives, however, have placed additional burdens on the state budget due to the need for state subsidies and tax exemptions for companies, with the expectation that they would contribute to long-term sustainable economic growth and development.

 

Despite these efforts, the economic reforms have led to only a slow increase in public health spending. There remains a significant disparity in budget allocations between public health and other state functions, resulting in high out-of-pocket healthcare costs for citizens and inadequate provision of health services by public institutions. The government of North Macedonia must demonstrate strong political will by taking concrete steps to improve macroeconomic policy planning and execution, as this significantly impacts citizens’ ability to fully exercise their social and economic rights, particularly the right to health and healthcare.

 

Rather than relying on populist and short-term solutions that provide only temporary relief, the government needs to implement serious reforms that foster long-term economic progress and equitable access to healthcare. Such reforms should lead to meaningful improvements in the public system, enhancing citizens’ access to essential health services.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8TmHUt5GiM, published on 07.04.2020.

Private research and the pharmaceutical industry are currently far from promoting innovation because they prioritize profit

On World Health Day 2020, ESE, in collaboration with the European Network against the Privatization and Commercialization of Health and Social Care and the People’s Health Movement (PHM), launched a national campaign titled “Stand Together for Universal Public Health Policies in Europe” to rally public support against the commercialization of healthcare.

 

As part of the campaign, we emphasized that effective and safe medicines, including the potential COVID-19 vaccine and treatments for the disease, must be available free of charge to all citizens. National health systems should pay fair prices for these drugs, as pharmaceutical companies are primarily motivated by profit. Citizens often end up paying twice for their medications—first by funding public research through hospitals and university centers, and second when purchasing medications from labs that hold patents based on publicly funded research.

 

In collaboration with the European Network and PHM, we urge European institutions and EU member states to amend regulations for the European Medicines Agency and other relevant agencies regarding:

  1. Data submitted for drug approval must be made public and cannot be withheld as confidential. The entire approval process must be open to independent scrutiny. Trade secrets cannot justify withholding public health-related information.
  2. Clinical trials required by the European Medicines Agency to assess drug efficacy and safety must meet strict conditions to avoid placing products on the market that do not offer real innovation compared to existing treatments. This practice inflates drug prices while increasing pharmaceutical company profits.
  3. Studies submitted in support of drug approvals are currently funded by the industry, creating a conflict of interest. We advocate for independent, non-profit, publicly funded research agencies to conduct these studies.

 

Furthermore, we call on EU member states and other European countries to adopt aggressive strategies for negotiating the prices of new medicines. If pharmaceutical companies persist in setting unreasonably high prices, their patent rights should be revoked. Public resources must be allocated to support research. A coordinated societal response to drug research and production is essential.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4xkrJidFQw, published on 26.03.2020.

Even ten years after the adoption of the Law on the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information, citizens still struggle to exercise their right to information

On World Access to Information Day – “I Have the Right to Know,” ESE, as an organization that requests a large amount of information from public institutions through the Law on Free Access to Public Information, shared its experiences in applying the Law and compared the challenges and opportunities from 2016 to 2006.

 

Ten years after the adoption of the Law, the number of individuals requesting access to information has significantly increased compared to 2006. However, it is still evident that civil society organizations remain the primary users of the Law, as fewer than ten individual citizens submit requests for information annually. In many cases, the Law still serves as a unique tool to obtain information about the operations of public institutions, despite the process being lengthy and requiring significant financial resources. Additionally, the quality of data provided through these requests is often poor and, in some cases, unusable for civil society organizations and the public. The silence of the public administration remains a key issue, as the protection of citizens’ right to access information continues to be insufficient and does not guarantee the provision of requested information.

 

Link to our statement: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bph2ILs9qvE, published on 20.09.2016.

PUBLICATIONS

The impact of public purchases made by public health institutions on the improvement of the health indicators of citizens in RSM

2020

Measuring the level of reactive and proactive transparency of public institutions

2021

Manual for budget analysis and interpretation of budget data intended for civil organizations from RSM

2020

Manual for budget monitoring and advocacy for drug harm reduction programs

2018

Involvement of the citizens of the municipality of Tetovo in the decision-making and budgeting processes: reality and challenges

2013

Other publications

ESE's Approach to the Issue of "Fiscal Transparency and Governance"

The Association ESE recognized fiscal transparency as a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the basic right to health and, since 2012, began utilizing budget monitoring and analysis tools to determine the actual costs and benefits of government activities. Through monitoring and shadow reports, ESE evaluates the work of public institutions in the health sector, which are responsible for safeguarding the right to health. ESE also collaborates with civil society organizations at both the national and local levels, strengthening their capacities in budget monitoring, analysis, and fiscal transparency.

ESE’s work in promoting fiscal transparency involves a series of actions, including evaluating the extent to which widely accepted principles of transparent operations are respected and publishing documents created during the implementation of fundamental fiscal policies. The organization encourages transparency in state institutions by regularly utilizing the mechanism for accessing public information, monitoring other countries’ efforts to increase transparency in fiscal operations, tracking the development of transparency policies in the Republic of North Macedonia, and assessing the degree to which transparency obligations are fulfilled.

In addition to these activities, ESE undertakes various specific actions to inform the public about the state of fiscal transparency in North Macedonia and citizens’ rights in this area. The organization also assesses the level of citizen participation in the operations of public institutions and encourages individuals to seek greater inclusion and advocate for changes in the way public institutions function.

 

As a member of international movements promoting transparency and accountability in government processes, ESE advocates for increasing the availability of information on government operations to the public. To achieve these goals, ESE continuously builds its own capacities as well as those of other civil society organizations.

 

This publication outlines ESE’s approach to promoting fiscal transparency and governance.

2018 People’s money is spent non-transparently, some public institutions submit accounts only under pressure

Annual Reports on the Assessment of the Level of Reactive Transparency of Public Institutions in RSM

Reactive transparency refers to the provision of information regarding the operations of a public institution following a previously submitted request for access to public information. In other words, it pertains to transparency as prescribed by the procedures outlined in the Law on Free Access to Public Information.

Each year, we conduct an analysis of how various public institutions respond to requests submitted under the Law on Free Access to Public Information, documenting the changes or progress in the institutions’ behavior compared to previous periods. The reports from the annual monitoring of the proactive transparency of more than 80 public institutions in the Republic of North Macedonia that are under ESE’s observation are prepared using an assessment methodology developed and applied by ESE since 2013.

2021 What is the level of reactive transparency in 2021?
2020 What is the level of reactive transparency among public institutions in 2020?
2019 Analysis of the level of reactive transparency among public institutions in 2019
2018

 

Analysis of the level of reactive transparency among public institutions in 2018
2017 Reactive transparency
2016 In 2016, public institutions are slowly becoming aware of transparency, but it is still not at a satisfactory level
2015 There are no more specific data on the way of spending the budget funds until point 23 in part IV of the instructions on the way of treasury operation is changed.
2014 In 2014, the Ministry of Finance and FZOM were more transparent compared to other institutions
2013 The Government of the Republic of Macedonia, the General Secretariat of the Government, the Ministry of Finance, and the CZJ are the most closed institutions to the public in 2013

Annual Reports on the Assessment of the Level of Proactive Transparency of Public Institutions in RSM

Proactive transparency refers to the publication or accessibility of documents and information regarding the operations of public institutions without a prior request from citizens. The proactive dissemination of documents containing data on the functioning of public institutions—particularly concerning their financial activities—provides a foundation that enables citizens to participate in decision-making processes in an informed manner, independently push for change, or hold elected officials accountable.

Each year, we conduct an analysis to assess the level of proactive transparency in various public institutions and to identify any changes in this area over time. In addition, this analysis offers guidance to the institutions under review on how to achieve higher levels of proactive transparency through the publication of key budget and program documents, as well as other operational information. It is important to note that the analysis does not seek to interpret the quality of the published documents or information but simply provides an overview of their availability at the time of monitoring.

The annual reports from the monitoring of proactive transparency in 25 public institutions in the Republic of North Macedonia, conducted by ESE, are based on an evaluation methodology developed and applied by ESE since 2013.

2022 Evaluation of the level of public availability of information available to 25 public institutions in 2022
2021 What is the level of proactive transparency among public institutions in RSM in 2021
2020 What is the level of proactive transparency among public institutions in RSM in 2020
2019 Analysis of the level of proactive transparency among public institutions in 2019
2018 Presentation of reactive and proactive transparency in public institutions in 2018
2017 Proactive transparency
2016 In 2016, public institutions are slowly becoming aware of transparency, but it is still not at a satisfactory level
2015 In 2015, there was no progress on the level of transparency of public institutions in the Republic of Macedonia
2014 In 2014, the Ministry of Finance and FZOM were more transparent compared to other public institutions
2013 The Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health, ZD Skopje and the municipalities of Kočani and Tetovo in 2013 are not proactively transparent institutions

Annual Reports on the Evaluation of the Level of Reactive and Proactive Transparency of Public Institutions in RSM

Fiscal transparency and, more broadly, transparency in the operations of public institutions should be a fundamental principle and value of every government worldwide, as it fosters greater confidence in the stability of the country and encourages more investments and development.

Reactive transparency refers to the provision of information upon public request, and it is assessed by analyzing the procedures for accessing information of a public nature for each institution individually. The operations of each institution are measured by eight parameters: the number of received answers within the regular procedure, the number of incomplete answers within the regular procedure, the number of rejected or stopped procedures by the holders of public information, the number of requests where holders remained silent, the number of submitted complaints to the holders of public information, the number of complaints that received a response, the average period of receiving a response to submitted requests for access to public information in regular and appeal procedures, and the average period of receiving a response in an appeal procedure due to dissatisfaction with the response received.

Proactive transparency involves the voluntary publication of information and documents by institutions. It is measured by monitoring whether key documents and information are published or not, including work strategy, annual programs, budget calendar, pre-budget statement, civil budget, budget proposals and adopted budgets, proposed amendments and adopted amendments and additions to the budget, budget documents in open formats (xml and excel), monthly budget execution reports, semi-annual budget execution reports, final budget accounts, audit reports, data on the person appointed to mediate public information, and lists of public information.

Each year, we prepare a joint presentation of both types of transparency—reactive and proactive—among public institutions, in addition to individual analyses of each type. The joint presentation aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the transparency of public institutions, regardless of whether it is reactive or proactive.

The reports from the annual monitoring procedures of reactive and proactive transparency of public institutions in RSM are prepared based on the assessment methodology developed and applied by ESE since 2013.

2021 What is the level of reactivity and proactivity among public institutions in RSM in 2021?
2020 What is the level of reactivity and proactivity among public institutions in RSM in 2020?
2019 Presentation of reactive and proactive transparency in public institutions for 2019
2018 Presentation of reactive and proactive transparency in public institutions in 2018
2017 Comparative analysis, the Ministry of Health is the leading institution for 2017 in the practice of reactive and proactive non-disclosure of public information
2016 In 2016, as in past years, institutions provide more information after submitted requests for information of a public nature instead of making it available to the public on their own initiative
2015 Public institutions in the Republic of Macedonia are more willing to implement bureaucratic procedures and respond to requests for free access to information than to publish that information and make it available to the public
2014 In 2014, the Ministry of Finance and FZOM were more transparent compared to other public institutions in the Republic of Macedonia
2013 The Ministry of Finance is by far the most non-transparent institution in the Republic of Macedonia in 2013

 

 

Annual Reports from the Monitoring of Public Procurement Procedures in the Public Health Sector

The way public health institutions, and other public institutions in general, spend budget funds is of immense importance, as these funds are collected from citizens and companies in the form of public charges (such as mandatory health insurance, taxes, and fees).

Failure to provide information or providing partial information on public procurement procedures carried out by public health institutions causes the public to doubt the integrity of these institutions and suggests the possibility of irrational and inefficient spending of citizens’ money. Therefore, it is crucial for citizens to have access to information about how public health institutions manage and spend their funds, as this transparency will allow citizens to hold institutions accountable for their operations.

In 2016, the Association for the Emancipation, Solidarity, and Equality of Women (ESE) initiated continuous annual monitoring of public procurement procedures in the public health sector. This monitoring aims to identify problems within the public procurement system and provide recommendations for enhancing transparency in public procurement within public health. The overarching goal is to optimize efficiency and effectiveness in public procurement, improve the quality of services provided by public health institutions, maximize the impact of citizens’ funds in the provision of public health services, and support citizens in gaining better access to healthcare.

These analyses offer an overview of the total expenditures incurred by 62 public health institutions on the procurement of goods, services, and works (through an analysis of the estimated value of the respective public procurement and the value of the selected offer), the cost portfolio resulting from public procurement procedures, the level of economy in offer selection, and the level of transparency maintained by institutions during the execution of public procurement procedures. These analyses are part of ESE’s regular monitoring activities for public procurement procedures in the public health sector, initiated in 2016. The analyses are based on data published on ESJN and are prepared following a methodology developed by ESE.

2016–2017 Do citizens feel the benefits of public procurement procedures in public health?
2011–2015 Public procurement, a gray area in the operation of the public health sector

Materials Related to the Open Government Partnership Process in RSM

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a voluntary international initiative that began in 2011, initiated by eight countries: Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Today, 78 countries and numerous civil society organizations participate in this initiative. By joining OGP, North Macedonia has committed, alongside civil society organizations and citizens, to preparing and implementing commitments to promote transparency, support civil participation, combat corruption, and use new technologies, among other objectives, at least every two years.

ESE has been an active participant in this process since its inception. As a result of our active involvement, ESE has contributed to the preparation of several materials with different purposes. For those involved or interested in joining the process of co-creating OGP action plans, we encourage you to download the educational brochure, which contains information about the goals of the process, how it is implemented, and opportunities for involvement.

Civil society organizations that are informed about and follow the implementation of the action plans developed in this process can prepare independent shadow reports. To aid in this, we recommend downloading the two shadow reports that we have prepared.

For those who want to learn more about how specific measures were implemented in this process, we invite you to download the two case studies.

2022 Municipality according to citizens’ measure: An innovative approach for transparent, accountable and inclusive municipalities – case study
2022 Open vault– case study
2020 Educational material on Open Government Partnership
2017 Did and how much did the Open Government Partnership Action Plan for 2016-2018 contribute to facilitating access to public information and improving the level of fiscal transparency? – shadow report
2016 Is the involvement in the Open Government Partnership initiative a priority for the Government of the Republic of Macedonia or is it just a matter of following global trends? – shadow report

Reports from the Monitoring of the Implementation of Credit Agreements, Donations, and Bilateral Agreements for Financial Support

Advocating for transparency and accountability, ESE monitors not only budget funds but also the expenditure of funds obtained through loans, donations, and bilateral agreements for financial support. These funds often fully or partially support projects of public interest. ESE places particular focus on the funds intended for projects aimed at the investment and modernization of the healthcare system.

ESE has prepared a report on the implementation of the project Rehabilitation of 52 Public Health Institutions (PHI), which is carried out by the government of the Republic of North Macedonia using both budget funds and funds from the Development Bank of the Council of Europe and the Western Balkans Investment Framework. In addition, ESE has reported on the project Establishing an Integrated Healthcare System for Mothers and Children to Improve Health Outcomes in the Republic of Macedonia, which is financed through an ORIO grant from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, managed by the Unit responsible for the ORIO program (NL EVD International).

These reports provide insight not only into the expenditure of borrowed or received funds but also into how projects of public interest are managed in our country.

2014 What happens to the money from the state budget, Council of Europe Development bank loans and grants, and Western Balkans investment fund grants for the improvement of the health status of citizens?
2019 What happens to the money from the Dutch ORIO grant intended for the improvement of health care for mothers and children?

Participation of Citizens in Decision-Making and Budgeting Processes

The involvement of citizens in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of local policies and budgets is regulated by several international and regional documents. The Republic of Macedonia has ratified most of these documents and is therefore tasked with respecting, implementing, and protecting the rights of citizens in relation to these matters.

Participatory budgeting is an innovative process for the direct involvement of citizens in decision-making, specifically in shaping public policies and allocating budget funds. This concept has been applied worldwide since 1985. Participatory budgeting is carried out through various procedures that ensure the continuous engagement of citizens, such as public gatherings at the municipal or local community level, the collection of citizen opinions, surveys, and more. This process empowers citizens to set priorities that are important to them, which may differ from those set by the government, and allows them to monitor the use of public funds. The prioritization set by the citizens does not imply that all their demands should be met within one or two years. Instead, it signifies a continuous process of jointly determining and setting priorities while ensuring that the municipality allocates sufficient resources to perform its basic functions for each budget year.

This publication presents the findings of a survey conducted on the level of citizen involvement in decision-making and budgeting processes in the municipality of Kočani, as well as the degree of awareness among the local population regarding their opportunities and rights for participation.

2013 Involvement of citizens from the municipality of Kočani in the decision-making and budgeting processes – reality and challenges

 

Sustainability of Harm Reduction Programs – Publications Prepared by ESE

In line with promoting the use of budget analyses to identify potential funds for supporting CSO activities, ESE has prepared several publications for the HOPS association and the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRA).

One of the publications was developed for the EHRA network to present the state of HIV in North Macedonia and the experiences of civil society organizations in advocating for the sustainability of harm reduction programs for drug use and HIV, following the cessation of financial support from the Global Fund. To identify possible funding sources for these harm reduction programs from the North Macedonian budget, particularly funds collected from excise taxes on beer, ethyl alcohol, and cigarettes, as stipulated by the Health Care Law, ESE prepared an analysis.

In search of potential funding sources for HOPS, we also conducted an analysis on the involvement of civil society organizations in providing social and healthcare services at the local level.

2021 Taking stock of budget advocacy efforts in Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe and Central Asia – North Macedonia Country case
2021 Civil organizations in providing social and health care at the local level
2018 Ensuring the sustainability of damage reduction programs through the budget of the Republic of Macedonia