About us

What we do

More ...
Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries 

More ...
Funded by

 

This Project is funded by
The European Union

SIGMA: Ukraine has already made considerable progress in reforming some areas of its Public Administration

Recently, SIGMA Programme has introduced the report on the performance of Ukraine in 2017 in approaching the Principles of Public Administration (in terms of the Public Administration Reform – PAR) for the EU candidate countries and potential candidates. The report covers both measurement reviews and short- and medium-term recommendations to improve PAR in Ukraine.

The report covers several issues:

  • Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform (PAR)
  • Policy Development and Co-ordination
  • Accountability
  • Service Delivery

According to the SIGMA monitoring report, “overall, Ukraine has already made considerable progress in reforming some areas of its public administration”.

The baseline measurement report also covered the progress of Ukraine in the area of the European integration.

Among key positive results:

  • new legislation in the civil service area that established a wide scope of the civil service and introduced many solutions that contribute to the professionalisation of the civil service
  • administrative justice

However, some areas still require improvements:

  • remuneration of civil servants,
  • civil servants` recruitment,
  • service delivery,
  • organisation of the public administration - restructure selected ministries and transfer some of their functions to agencies,
  • steering and co-ordination of some reform initiatives.

The baseline measurement report also covered the progress of Ukraine in the area of the European integration.

SIGMA has valued Fulfilment of European integration functions by the centre-of-government (CoG) institutions as 3 of 5 points: 

"All critical functions related to the EI process have been assigned to the GOEEAI and are performed in practice, except the co-ordination of accession negotiations, as that is currently not relevant for Ukraine. The EI Committee is not fulfilling its overall political-level co-ordination function, however, and administrative-level co-ordination mechanisms have not been established."

In terms of the establishment of the "clear horizontal procedures for governing the national European integration process are established and enforced under the co-ordination of the responsible body", was admitted the positive role of the Government Office for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration (GOEEAI). For instance, SIGMA noted that the instructions were supported by methodological guidelines developed by the GOEEAI in cooperation with the EU funded Association 4U Project (“Methodology on EU law compliance check and tables of compliance drafting”).

The Sub-indicators for governing the national EU Integration processes and co-ordination received quite good points - 13 from 18 points:

  • Proportion of the EI functions that are assigned to the CoG institutions by law - 5 from 6
  • Availability of guidelines to line ministries and other government bodies - 2 from 4
  • Government’s capacity for co-ordination of EU Integration 6 from 8

As for the key Key Short-term (1–2 years) recommendation, it is stated: that “the EI committee should become fully functional as the political-level co-ordination body by consistently discussing EI-related plans and reports on their implementation. The horizontal administrative-level EI co-ordination mechanism should be established and operationalised.

And for Medium-term (3–5 years) authors of the report emphasized on the need for guidelines for planning and monitoring EU assistance.

Quality of policy planning for European integration was valued 2 from 5 points (6 from 16 points):

  • The legal framework enables harmonised planning of EU Integration - 2 form 2
  • Quality of planning documents for EU Integration - 2 from 6
  • EU Integration-related commitments carried forward - 2 from 4
  • Implementation rate of the government’s plans for EU Integration-related legislative commitments (%) 0 from 4

The key findings: "there is no co-ordination between the GOEEAI and the other Centre of Government (CoG) bodies during the preparation of the Plan, and only 60% of legislative commitments from the APIAA are included in the GPAP...Overall progress in implementing the Association Agreement in 2017 was low (41%), and 38% of commitments from the previous APIAA were carried forward to the 2017 Plan."

Government capability for aligning national legislation with the European Union acquis was valued 1 from 5 (5 from 17 points):

  • Adequacy of the regulatory framework for the acquis alignment process - 4 from 5
  • Use of tables of concordance in the acquis alignment process (%) - 1 from 2
  • Translation of the acquis into the national language - 0 from 2
  • Acquis alignment commitments carried forward (%) - 0 from 4
  • Implementation rate of legislative commitments for acquis alignment (%) - 0 from 4

The low score of the translations of the acquis is explained in the way as follows: “timely translation of the EU acquis is not ensured. As the previous APIAA did not specify commitments related to acquis alignment, the implementation rate could not be calculated”.

For evaluation and measurement reviews of other issues, kindly, read the “Baseline Measurement Report: The Principles of Public Administration. Ukraine, June 2018” (click here).