• Do more with your content!Discover PreventionWeb Services
  • Consultant : climate change expert for facilitating a governance assessment on local action for climate change

    Email sent!

    An email has been sent to the email addresses provided, with a link to this content.

    Thank you for sharing!


Consultant : climate change expert for facilitating a governance assessment on local action for climate change

United Nations Development Programme - the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (UNDP - TFYRM)


The term governance relates to the broader social system of governing as opposed to the narrower perspective of a government as the main decision-making political entity. It covers the way the in which power is exercised in the management of natural, economic and social resources, and broadly embraces the formal and informal institutions by which authority is exercised. For good governance a few necessary conditions must be met: technical, managerial and organizational competence, accountability, public participation, transparency, clear division of responsibilities, etc.

Poor governance leads to increased political and social risks, institutional failure, and deterioration of the capacity to cope with shared problems. Some approaches to improving governance include measures for building local capacities for better policy formulation, and implementation and enforcement mechanisms. It also includes turning decision-making and implementation a more inclusive process where civil society and the private sector have clear roles to play with shared responsibilities.

Recently, it has been understood that climate change cannot be effectively addressed in a purely technocratic manner due to its complexity and that governance obstacles preclude progress even when technical and policy solutions are available. Climate change governance is multi-sectoral, encompassing energy, agriculture, forests, water resources and disaster risk reduction within efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In addition to being multi-sectoral, climate change is a challenge for all levels of government, so multi-level governance must be adopted. Good climate change governance must also include improved awareness and knowledge management, greater political space for civil society participation, and collaboration among all actors.

The main challenges related to improvement of climate change governance are the following: strengthening national and sub-national institutions with responsibilities related to climate change; developing institutional and staff capacity to formulate and implement effective policies and to enforce implementation; building the political authority of relevant institutions and renewing political attention to climate change issues; establishing mechanisms for public access to environmental information and public participation in environment-related decision-making, for reasons among others to reduce opportunity for corruption; developing/amending legislation in the context of the international legal framework; setting priorities/objectives; decentralizing environmental management; assuring integration of climate change concerns into all development strategies and plans and increasing coordination of ministries and agencies for better policy integration linking climate change, environment and economy; increasing financial resources from governmental budget to tackle environmental problems; introducing climate change criteria and instruments for decision-making process; engaging in international environment-related regional and global processes.

The capacity of governments to address short and long term climate change issues in an effective way will influence their ability to address future trends and emerging issues. Many large cities have been pro-active on addressing climate change because they see it as essential for their survival (C40 initiative). While they have the ability to act even without support of their national government, most smaller cities, towns and rural municipalities need this support. National governments are not the only form of support as donor organizations may offer funding, and research institutions and NGOs can provide relevant information. Receiving clear guidance and support from the national government, combined with increased networking with other municipalities, research institutions, NGOs, civil society and private sector will be needed for local governments to create effective climate change governance.

What is a nationally-owned governance assessment approach?

The nationally owned Governance Assessment (GA) approach aims to establish a system of information on governance issues (governance data) through the development of governance indicators which can be measured over a period of time. The process undertaken includes a diverse range of key stakeholders as owners of the process. The difference between a nationally owned GA and other more externally driven assessments is that it is fully initiated, implemented, and sustained by national actors. By ensuring the inclusion and participation of all key national stakeholders in the design, choice of methodology, selection of the framework to be measured, the indicators developed to measure or assess governance is likely to be more reflective of the country context, thereby providing more legitimacy and relevance. The analysis of these indicators will lead to the establishment of a baseline, which will be then used to make an assessment of performance in subsequent times.

When conducted successfully, a nationally owned governance assessment can strengthen democratic governance in a country, provide opportunities for state-citizen engagement, and ultimately serve as an accountability mechanism among different stakeholders. If the process becomes institutionalized and indicators are measured regularly, governance assessments also provide a reference for planning, monitoring and evaluation of governance performance.

Specific features differentiate a nationally led GA from other external assessments. They are participatory and include a broad and representative range of national actors (government, civil society, academics) who are given the opportunity to provide input to key stages of the assessment process. They provide national actors access to information on the assessment process, and the results of the assessment are made available to the public as a public good. They act as critical accountability mechanism for local stakeholders with regard to governance performance. As a result, such assessments have the benefit of being recognized as legitimate as national actors were part of the assessment process (in the planning, design, selection of scope and methodologies) and the production of findings.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has worked countries across the globe on producing disaggregated governance indicators to enable national stakeholders to better monitor performance in governance reforms. UNDP places particular focus on assessments that build and sustain domestic accountability relationships, and that are grounded on principles of national ownership, inclusive development, and harmonization with national processes. (Oslo Principles on Democratic Governance Assessments). Through the Global Programme on Governance Assessments, UNDP has provided advisory and financial support to catalyze country-led assessment initiatives in more than 20 countries. It has also produced a wider range of knowledge products, including User Guides on topics such as governance indicators, gender sensitive indicators, measuring corruption, civil society assessments, selecting tools and assessment frameworks, among other areas of related support. It is therefore viewed to be well positioned to provide high value technical support and assistance for this initiative.

Country Framework for Climate Change

National level. Acknowledging the significance of the climate change problem and the necessity to take effective actions for its mitigation, Macedonia ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on December 4, 1997 (Official Gazette of RM – International agreements 61/97), and became party to the Convention on April 28, 1998, and the Kyoto Protocol was ratified in July 2004. Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change must submit national reports on implementation of the Convention to the Conference of the Parties (COP). The Initial National Communication was submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat in March 2003, and presented at the side event at COP9. The Second National Communication (SNC) was adopted by the Government in December 2008 and consequently submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat in January 2009. Currently the country is working on preparation of its Third National Communication. As a non-Annex I to the UNFCCC, the country has no emissions reduction requirements under these agreements.

The country associated to the Copenhagen Accord at the end of January 2010 and submitted its reduction targets and a preliminary list of mitigation actions (without quantifying the associated emission reductions) based on the action plan developed as part of the Second National Communication to the UNFCCC. The Cancun agreement formally recognizes the planned actions to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions communicated by developing countries since Copenhagen. It also reaffirms that non-annex 1 countries will implement nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) in the context of sustainable development. Mitigation actions taken by non-Annex I parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification of the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.

The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MoEPP) is the key governmental body responsible for coordinating the implementation of provisions deriving from the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, being the National Focal Point to the UNFCCC. National communications contain information on national circumstances, vulnerability assessment, financial resources and transfer of technology, and education, training and public awareness.

Most of the relevant ministries have nominated Climate Change Focal Points. The Designated National Authority is performing its role in regards to the Kyoto Protocol and the first Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project has been registered while several others are in an advanced stage of development. National Platform for Disaster Risk Management was established in 2009 as a response to the obligations set in the Hyogo Framework for Action. Climate Risks are among the key ones that are priority for Macedonia, and with UNDP’s support relevant institutions have started a process of development of specific methodologies for risk assessment on national and local level.

Accession to the European Union is at the core of the development goals of the country and the main driving force. The European Union integration agenda generates the necessary momentum for political, economic and social reforms and contributes to building consensus on important policy issues across the sectors. Nonetheless, its implementation remains a challenge, particularly due to the country’s low socio-economic standing and capacity constraints.

According to the assessment done as part of the stocktaking exercise for the Third National Communication to UNFCCC, policy formulation is still strongly compartmentalized across the sectors with climate change policy treated often as strictly environmental sector agenda. There is no separate climate legislation but provisions related to climate change are incorporated in the key laws on environment protection and energy. Implementation of various strategies and plans as well as enforcement of law is continuously a weak point of the system. In addition, the country has ratified the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. While its provisions are fully incorporated as a separate chapter in the Law on Environment Protection, participatory processed are not yet fully implemented in a way where non-state actors would be considered having a sufficient voice in the decision-making process. It shall be noted that a Law on Free Access to Public Information was enacted and all public institutions are obliged to enforce it by making the public information available for the citizens.

Climate change policy is still fragmented into isolated efforts that do not allow for a sustained capacity in the definition, implementation and monitoring of the process, even more so in a participatory manner. Nevertheless, climate change has increasingly taken public policy spaces since the Second National Communication. There are a growing number of Ministries appointing Climate Change Focal Points and getting involved in the climate change mitigation and adaptation policy processes within their respective areas (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy) and there is therefore a momentum for undertaking an assessment of the governance framework, engaging state and non-state actors.

Local government (LG) level. Waste management, drinking water supply, sewage and construction of water purification stations and securing ambient air quality including construction of related infrastructure and monitoring systems at municipal level are the key competencies in the area of environmental protection that were transferred to the municipalities in the country in 2005. Furthermore, the urban planning and protection of citizens and goods shall also be considered as competencies that impact or are affected by climate change.

Competencies for development of the regional environmental infrastructure such as the regional landfills, regional drinking water supply systems and management of the river basins are shared competence between the local and the central level authorities. Municipalities still have very limited competencies in the area of agriculture land management, forestry and pastures. In accordance with the Law on Nature Protection, management of the lower categories of protected areas can be delegated to the municipalities. The municipal competencies in the area of energy management and energy efficiency are limited to interventions for improvement of the energy efficiency of the municipal public buildings. With regard to the transport and the mobility, the municipalities are responsible for construction and maintenance only of the network of the local roads and for organization and regulation of the public transportation at the territory of the municipality.

Duties and Responsibilities

Recognizing the need to identify specific gaps in climate change governance to which specific corrective measures should be developed, while keeping a holistic, cross-sectoral, and national perspective in view, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning has decided to initiate a participatory governance assessment in partnership with the LG association (ZELS) that would look at both structures and stakeholder engagement mechanisms for climate change management that are needed to meet UNFCCC and EU requirements, with a particular emphasis on the local level (See in Annex as the example of the Assessment framework of the Local Governance Barometer which can be adapted to context specific situations, blended with national level measurements etc.).

More specifically, the assessment would serve to:

  • Provide tools and mechanisms for monitoring policy implementation related to climate change;
  • Provide evidence for developing corrective measures in terms of policy formulation and coordination, funding and responsibility distribution;
  • Equip citizens and civil society organizations with evidence for advocacy and create and institutionalize processes for dialogue between national and local government and citizens on climate change;
  • Strengthen governance systems through supply of better governance data at regular intervals for the analysis of the current state of governance, and allow for recommendations for policy reform;
  • Institutionalize processes in which citizens and CSOs use evidence to make governments accountable;
  • Act as a medium to foster constructive engagement of LGs and non-state actors in the decision making process.

In addition to providing an institutionalized mechanism for regular measurement of governance and accountability, the assessment will generate recommendations for follow-up, suggesting corrective measures, policies, or initiatives (based on a normative consensus) to be integrated within the National Agenda, including negotiations with the European Union on the country’s accession process.

In addition to providing an institutionalized mechanism for regular measurement of governance and accountability, the assessment will generate recommendations for follow-up, suggesting corrective measures, policies, or initiatives (based on a normative consensus) to be integrated within the National Agenda, including negotiations with the European Union on the country’s accession process.

These measures could include, among others:

Short/medium term objectives

  • Identify relevant/ affected stakeholders here – both within government (agencies, ministries, and other relevant bodies) as well as civil society actors
  • Identify and establish mechanisms for consultation and feedback from local communities
  • Identify policies and legislation on climate change that are relevant to communities (also on regulations in other sectors, but which could have an impact), and how such information is made available to stakeholders.
  • Assess the capacity of relevant institutions at national and sub-national levels to gauge their ability to implement CC efforts in an accountable and transparent manner.
  • Assess mechanisms available to make relevant subsidies (eg. energy, water) accountable and transparent
  • Identify relevant anti-corruption mechanisms

Suggested Long term objectives

  • Increase effectiveness and inclusiveness of local government administration with respect to climate change policy and action
  • Enhanced coordination among agencies in different line ministries/institutions and central ministries/institutions with respect to policies affecting climate change mitigation or adaptation actions at the local level
  • Capacity building to facilitate regular and relevant information sharing (supply side of accountability) as well as the active use of information for increased accountability (demand side of information)
  • Capacity development (training curricula and perhaps methodology for LAPs for Climate Change)
  • Establish mechanisms through which affected communities can voice their concerns. Etc.

The scope of the assessment will be defined in a participatory manner involving several concerned stakeholders able to flag governance bottlenecks, which may not be visible from a central government perspective only. Some well-known deficiencies have already been flagged with regards to the efficiency of the institutional structure in the country: responsibilities are dispersed among ministries and state bodies, which often do not carry out efficiently regular expected activities such as planning, management, data monitoring and processing and evaluation. Financial resources are often lacking to provide effective institutional operation related to the identified priority issues. Inter-institutional cooperation remains insufficient. The designated institutions are not fully updating the collected data/parameters on climate, climate change impact, water resources, air quality, water quality, etc. Beyond these issues of efficiency and effectiveness, other dimensions of governance such as transparency, accountability, anti-corruption, participation, equity may need to be equally addressed.

There is no integral LG climate change governance platform in place at the moment. Its key functions are fragmented and with regard to the transparency implemented through multipurpose instruments such as the municipal Web page, the municipal Newsletter and the Official Gazette. With regard to the access to the public information, the municipal administration, the local institutions and public enterprises are still more reactive (to the citizens requests) than proactive (making information available without formal request by using diversified channels and tools). Less than 10 out of 85 municipalities are ISO certified and this indicates a lack of sustainable (integrity and accountability) local governance systems. Financial reports on the local budget expenditures are mainly published once per year in a format of an annual report. Quarterly reports are not made publicly available. The collected data is rarely translated in citizen’s friendly formats. There is no local practice in social audit by CSOs and/or community based planning groups

Existing (and obligatory) participatory bodies in the municipalities such as the Urban Planning Commissions are playing important role in planning the urban and rural development and their mandate can be extended in order to cover climate change prevention and adaptation aspects of the local spatial policies and plans. The existing legal opportunities regulated with the municipal Statutes allow creation of consultative bodies based on the decision made by the Mayor (in that case the body will be attached to the municipal administration) and/or the Municipal Council (attached to the Council). Basically there is legal prerogative in place for creation of local Climate Change Commissions.

Achieving higher degree of equity and responsiveness remains one of the crucial challenges of the local service delivery since the concepts of inclusiveness, community based local development, equitable allocation of the funds from the local budget are to be considered as a relative novelty in the local self-government system.

Dimension/ Principle and Measuring

  • Transparency: The effectiveness of the mechanisms that regulate and mandate transparent administrative and financial behavior.
  • Accountability: The efficiency and effectiveness of the mechanisms setup to hold individuals and groups to account.
  • Corruption: The effectiveness of the measures setup to control corruption.
  • Participation: The efficiency and effectiveness of the structure of participatory decision making.
  • Equity: The extent of fairness in the allocation, distribution, and provision of resources and services among citizens.
  • Responsiveness: The efficiency and effectiveness of government to respond to the needs of citizens and the priorities of the collective.
  • Effectiveness: The extent of achievement of targeted outcomes
  • Efficiency: The extent to which resource use/ utilization is maximized

For this purpose, a consensus on the scope and operational definitions of governance principles to be utilized in the assessment will be reached in a participatory manner during the proposed workshop (see below under Deliverables) as well as a preliminary discussion on different purposes this governance data may be used for. A scan of governance bottlenecks will thus be prepared ahead of the workshop to serve as a basis for discussion, reflecting deficiencies already known and enquiring into additional areas not yet reviewed.

Deliverables & Timeframe:

1) estimated August – September 2012 (Approximately 10 days home-based, with input from national expert) The Consultant shall perform a brief scan of governance issues, based on a desk research literature review, with support from a national consultant. In addition to the bottlenecks already flagged in the assessment done as part of the stocktaking exercise for the Third National Communication to UNFCCC (such as inefficiencies within ministries, lack of coordination between ministries and government agencies) as well as in other projects related to harmonization with the EU Climate acquis (all available documents will be provided). This quick scan would have the objective to flag for further discussion other areas of climate change governance which may be improperly addressed, particularly as they relate to implementation by local government. In fact, many of the same governance challenges are the same across sectors, such as high corruption risks, lack of access to information, low levels of transparency. The report (specified under the deliverables section) would also be expected to provide a preliminary analysis to map other relevant ongoing (or recent) governance initiatives to avoid duplication of efforts and identify useful partners.
The first draft of the report would serve as a basis for discussion in the subsequent workshop, where several national stakeholders will have the opportunity to engage in further identification of issues. The scan will be carried out by the Consultant in close coordination with the MoEPP, the UNDP CO and the Oslo Governance Center. This would allow the report to benefit from (i) relevant examples from other countries; (ii) the examination of governance areas not covered yet; (iii) the incorporation of participatory processes.

2) Estimated late September or early October 2012 (Approximately 5-day mission jointly with international governance assessment specialist). A multi-stakeholder workshop to identify (i) relevant stakeholders to take part in the GA process, (ii) priority areas of governance that need to assessed, (iii) the methodology to be developed and sources to be used, (iv) the implementation arrangements of the exercise. The workshop would also consider how to appropriately make use of this data – i.e. dissemination and use by civil society and government.

a) Identify and convene relevant stakeholders – A first step will be to identify, consult and convene a group of key stakeholders that are involved, have an interest in, or are affected by poor climate change governance. Typically, this includes a mix of government representatives (from relevant agencies and sectors), the LG Association - ZELS and relevant ZELS Committees (for environmental protection, communal issues, urban planning and rural development, etc.) civil society representatives, academic institutions, private sector etc. In addition to an Expert Group (made up of a combination of different stakeholders), a Research Team is also set up separately, who, based on the advice from the Expert Group, will implement the GA.

b) Identify the scope and framework of the assessment – what is it the objective of the assessment. Quite a few areas have been flagged, particularly with regards to efficiency. The workshop may be able to add, remove, prioritize areas to be assessed. Some examples:

  • Suitability of normative framework
  • Intra-governmental issues: unfunded mandates, lack of accountability and transparency, role division?
  • Relation government-non state actors (civil society, citizens, business sector, others)

Based on this, a framework will be identified in which indicators will be developed in line with EU and UNFCCC requirements and principles

c) Agree on data identification and collection – agree on the types of qualitative and quantitative data sources to be used. This can include administrative, archival and secondary data, as well as survey data. It will also be necessary to reach an agreement on the data collection methods, such as whether to conduct desk reviews, surveys, target group discussions, or a combination of these different elements. The methodologies selected will impact on the timing, as well as the required budget for the process.

d) Data analysis – once the data is collected, it is necessary to use the information and raw data generate to turn into useful information, suggesting conclusions and making recommendations for future decision-making. It is important to get the procedures for the data analysis agreed upon at the start of the overall assessment process in order to avoid potential manipulation or politicization of the data later on.

e) Data presentation and dissemination – the accessibility and transparency of the information generated from the assessment is a critical component of the assessment process. Communicating the results of the assessment is in itself an element of strengthening the democratic process and should depend very much on the priorities, purpose and intended outcome of the assessment process.

3) estimated October – November 2012. (Approximately 10 days home based with input from national expert, international governance expert, and stakeholders) As a result of the workshop, goals and areas will have been defined, a framework will have been designed with a methodology, a division of roles for the different aspects of the assessment will have been agreed upon, a timeline for the process and a proper costing will have been prepared. The outcome of the workshop would be the development of a full-fledged proposal for the governance assessment jointly with the MoEPP and other national stakeholders.

  • Deliverable 1. Plan and methodology for the governance assessment, including scope and framework of the assessment and roles of various stakeholders,

First draft of the Deliverable 1 shall be completed by mid-September 2012.

  • Deliverable 2: Together with an international expert on governance assessments, deliver initiation workshop with stakeholders

The workshop will be held at the end of September or at the beginning of October 2012

  • Deliverable 3: Climate Change Governance Assessment Report

The content of the Report is expected to follow the structure/chapters below:

  • I. Executive summary;
  • II. Introduction, including description of the methodology and the work conducted;
  • III. Detailed elaboration of national and local government responsibilities including shared responsibilities with respect to climate change mitigation (i.e. transport, energy, waste) and adaptation (i.e. water, forestry, agriculture);
  • IV. Findings from the assessment of the national and local strategic planning framework with emphasis on the relevant local plans (eg. local environmental action plans, energy efficiency plans, etc)
  • V. Findings from the assessment of the identified needs of local governments in terms of capacity-building, technical, human resources and financial gaps for implementing current legislation and strategies,
  • VI. Roadmap for fulfilling future obligations related to EU accession (Comparison Table related to EU and National climate legislation is already prepared by the MEPP and will be provided to the consultant) and criteria for prioritization of the actions of the national and the local actors; and
  • VII. Customized list of monitoring indicators, list of tools and methods for data identification as well as a Plan for collection of data and analysis of the indicators
  • VIII. Plan for dissemination of results and incorporation into national agenda

First draft of the Report limited to the chapters II – IV shall be completed by mid-September 2012.

Consolidated draft of the Report including all chapters shall be submitted by the end of October 2012

Final Report shall be completed by end of November 2012.

Payment Schedule:

Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner in accordance with the following schedule:

First installment: 30 % upon successful completing of Deliverable 1
Second installment: 30 % upon completing the consolidated draft of Deliverable 3
Third installment: 40% upon completing Deliverable 3

App. 10 days will be required to review / approve deliverables prior to authorizing payment.


  • Excellent ability to plan strategically, analyse and make recommendations;
  • Strong leadership, inter-personal, communication, and teamwork skills
  • Strong analytical, reporting and writing abilities
  • Ability to work against tight deadlines.
  • Excellent public speaking and presentation skills

Required Skills and Experience

Academic Qualifications/Education:

  • Masters degree in development, law, economics, climate change, energy, public policy, public administration or a relevant field


  • At least 10 years of professional experience in policy advice, formulation and implementation of strategies and programs related to climate change
  • Experience in EU context for climate change governance
  • Experience related to local government response to climate change
  • Previous experience of working in Western Balkans on similar issues.

Language skills:

  • Excellent writing, editing and oral communication skills in English
  • Ability to write clearly and compellingly in English

Evaluation of Applicants:

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications and financial proposal. The award of the contract should be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

  • responsive/compliant/acceptable, and
  • Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation.

Only the highest ranked candidates who would be found qualified for the job will be considered for the Financial Evaluation.

Technical Criteria - 70% of total evaluation – max. 70 points:Relevant educational background - max points: 10

  • Relevant professional experience – max points: 20
  • Knowledge of EU context for climate change governance (based on paper submitted) – max points: 20
  • Experience in Western Balkans – max points: 10
  • Language skills (English writing) – max points: 10

Financial Criteria - 30% of total evaluation – max. 30 points

Add this content to your collection!

Enter an existing tag to add this content to one or more of your current collections. To start a new collection, enter a new tag below.

See My collections to name and share your collection
Back to search results to find more content to tag

Log in to add your tags

    The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  • Additional location info Home-based with travel to Skopje for a one-week mission
  • Closing Date 21 Aug 2012

Please note:Content is displayed as last posted by a PreventionWeb community member or editor. The views expressed therein are not necessarily those of UNISDR PreventionWeb, or its sponsors. See our terms of use