Transparency of Local Development Programs (RO0083)

Description of the problem

In the implementation of the National Programme for Local Development (PNDL), publicly accessible data was limited and did not always have an easy format for potential users to use. Thus, there is a need to increase transparency on the implementation of investment objectives funding programmes

Description of the commitment

what Commitment Means The commitment aims to ensure greater transparency on the implementation of the PNDL 1 and PNDL 2 programmes until completion and for the national investment programme Anghel Saligny (the follow-up programme to PNDL, starting 2022).

what are the results pursued Increasing interaction between MDLPA and the public; Informing the public about the state of implementation of PNDL and Anghel Saligny; development of the Saligny implementation platform and the means of data export

what is the major objective Publication of open data on the implementation of local development financing programmes (PNDL, National Investment Programme Anghel Saligny)

Measurable activities (maximum 5) Responsible (institution/partner) Start date Date of completion

1. Organisation of a public meeting by MDLPA on the means of ensuring transparency in the implementation of the Anghel Saligny Programme MDLPA, Expert Forum June 2022 September 2022

2. Systematic publication of relevant data on the implementation of PNDL 1 and PNDL 2 programmes — settlement data, lists of completed projects, information on projects where MDLPA September 2022 December 2023 28 criminal irregularities have been identified

3. Regularly publish on the MDLPA website and on the data.gov.ro portal relevant data on the implementation of the Anghel Saligny Programme — lists of approved projects, applied criteria, procurement and supplier lists, settlement data, lists of completed projects, project information where criminal irregularities have been identified and any other information that can be made public and is relevant. It will also explore the possibility of developing an open data export mechanism or API-type system to extract data from the platform MDLPA September 2022 Permanent

Other information Budget required (lei) (source, if it already exists) Activities can be included in the monitoring of the National Investment Programme Anghel Saligny Correlation with other government programs/strategies

Action Plan Review

Commitment 6. Increase transparency on national investment allocations

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● Potential for results: Substantial

Increase transparency on national investment allocations

Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration, Expert Forum Association

For a complete description of the commitment, see Commitment 6 in Romania’s 2022–2024 action plan here.

Context and objectives

Proposed by EFOR, this commitment aims to improve transparency in the implementation of two local development programs managed by the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration (MDLPA): the National Local Development Plan [1] (Programul Naţional de Dezvoltare Locală (PNDL)) and the Anghel Saligny Program. [2] Since 2013, [3] the PNDL has been the Romanian government’s main tool for allocating funds for local development. [4] The PNDL’s main target for investment are rural areas, where about half of the national population lives. [5] The MDLPA has implemented the program in two phases (which have been extended several times): PNDL I (2015–2023) and PNDL II (2017–2022). According to official figures, as of December 2022, the government has allocated a total of approximately 46.2 billion RON (10.1 billion USD) for 11641 infrastructure projects during both phases. [6] Meanwhile, in 2021, the government created the Anghel Saligny Program, with a budget of 60 billion RON (13.1 billion USD) for the period 2021–2028. [7] The program’s goal is to modernize local communities through investments in infrastructure, such as roads, sewerage, water treatment plants, and natural gas distribution networks. [8]

The implementation of the PNDL has been under scrutiny in Romania. [9] In 2021, a report by the Court of Accounts showed a lack of discipline among local and national administrations regarding their management of PNDL projects. [10] According to EFOR, there is persistent mismanagement regarding PNDL projects. [11] EFOR reports that the public administration frequently prioritizes granting funds to local administrations belonging to the same party as the national government, [12] and that funds are often used to hire politically connected contractors. [13] In addition, the lack of data on projects’ levels of completion or eligibility criteria for funding makes it difficult for CSOs to flag irregularities and possible fraud. [14] EFOR also argues that the design of the Anghel Saligny Program did not address flaws identified in the PNDL, particularly the lack of performance audits and mechanisms for avoiding fraud. [15]

Currently, the MDLPA’s database on investments (https://investitii.mdlpa.ro) is not public. [16] The MDLPA does, however, publish basic information on the PNDL—such as targeted localities, project descriptions, and allocated amounts—both on its website [17] and on the national open data portal. [18] As for the Anghel Saligny Program, EFOR considers that Emergency Order 95/2021, which created the program, does not fully address the need for publishing the criteria used by the central administration to allocate funds. [19] In contrast to data on the PNDL, available data on the Anghel Saligny Program includes more items, such as a full list of funding requests, [20] and a unique identifying number for each project to help track its implementation. [21]

Romania has included commitments around the PNDL in its past two action plans. The 2018–2020 commitment aimed to open more data on the PNDL, and to organize a public consultation on the transparency, efficiency, and evaluation of the PNDL. [22] However, it saw limited completion. [23] The 2020–2022 commitment aimed to examine the PNDL’s governance mechanisms, increase data availability, and enhance public dialogue on the program’s implementation. [24] CSOs pointed out that these commitments have been somewhat effective to push for more transparency regarding the use of these funds, though the success has been limited. As expressed by EFOR, the difficulties reside in a lack of systematic publication of the data due to political and technical reasons. [25] While CSOs have received requested data from the government, the data is not published in a consistent format as planned under the earlier commitments. [26] Moreover, some municipalities refused to provide data or provided it with delay, while MDLPA did not have any sanctioning mechanism.

The present commitment follows previous efforts regarding the transparency of the PNDL, while also covering, for the first time, the Anghel Saligny Program. The MDLPA will regularly and systematically publish relevant data on key implementation of the two phases on the PNDL and on the Anghel Saligny Program to its website and to data.gov.ro. These data sets will cover lists of approved projects, applied criteria, procurement and supplier lists, settlement data, lists of completed projects, project information where criminal irregularities have been identified, and “any other information that can be made public and is relevant.” [27] It will also explore developing an open data export mechanism or application programming interface (API)-type system to extract data from the platform. [28] The commitment has a clear open government lens, as it seeks to improve public access to information on the implementation of major national investment funds. The MDLPA will also organize a public meeting on the implementation of the Anghel Saligny Program, making the commitment relevant to civic participation. According to EFOR, a discussion on technical aspects has already taken place on 16 November 2022 and, in this and other meetings, they will discuss what, how, and when the government will publish the relevant information. [29]

Potential for results – Substantial

This commitment could greatly improve the transparency of major national investment funding that play a crucial impact on the lives of millions of Romanians (especially in rural areas). [30] The IRM considers the potential for results substantial, as it could fundamentally improve the operations of a key funding source for local development in Romania. It covers two major programs which, combined, represent about 100 billion RON (approximately 22 billion USD), spanning 13 years, and which have been under public suspicion. Greater transparency alone is often insufficient to address the corruption and mismanagement noted by Romanian CSOs and media. However, this commitment will make the projects more traceable and transparent from the very start (e.g., identify backlogs or unjustified delays, mitigate the risk of artificial price increases, or increase the capacity of CSOs and authorities to detect potential fraud). The new data will allow CSOs, journalists, and other interested parties to monitor these investments and flag potential misuses more closely. Notably, the publication of these new data sets could help EFOR to implement monitoring mechanisms regarding past and current development projects, such as calculating cost standards for works, or publishing analysis to identify reasons for the delays in their implementation. [31]

Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations during implementation

This commitment can greatly improve the transparency of public investment funds in Romania and is supported by EFOR, which has consistently prioritized the area for inclusion in Romania’s OGP action plans. Nonetheless, its success will ultimately depend on the MDLPA’s level of interest in moving forward with the activities. There is a risk that the implementation will stall, as with the 2018–2020 commitment, which led to the publication of certain data sets but did not manage to open those considered most relevant by CSOs. [32] For this commitment to achieve the expected results, the IRM recommends the following:

• Seek a more robust role for CSOs and the media during implementation. While EFOR possesses expertise in assisting with the implementation of this commitment, the involvement of a wider range of CSO stakeholders and the media could ensure more effective implementation. This could be achieved by involving a larger number of CSOs working in transparency and fighting against corruption throughout the whole implementation (e.g., in prioritizing which data fields to publish). Moreover, once the data are published, investigative journalists could be key to generating stories and insight by using the newly released data and disseminating the results. More broadly, participation by diverse civic actors in implementation of the commitment would give them opportunities to coordinate how to use the newly released data most effectively. EFOR has also launched a publicly available interactive guide called “Public money detector” which integrates information on how budgets are formed, how investments are approved and how public money is spent. [33] EFOR has organized trainings across the country with local activists and journalists, with dedicated sessions (in September 2022) on how to use the data from this guide, with a focus on the PNDL and Anghel Saligny Program. [34] EFOR is also implementing a project between February 2022 and July 2023 to work with a diverse range of stakeholders to produce guides and reports on topics such as monitoring the administration, evidence-based public policies (for local elected officials) and the need to increase data publication for developing public policy. [35]
• Create synergies with the MDLPA’s integrity plan. In December 2021, the Romanian government adopted a new 2021–2025 anti-corruption strategy that foresees all central and local public institutions and authorities adopting an organizational integrity agenda. [36] The MDLPA is responsible for increasing integrity and reducing corruption risks in local public administration, [37] which is also reflected in the ministry’s integrity plan. [38] Moreover, the plan establishes a need to put in place transparency and data publication procedures regarding the allocation of funds from national investment programs. Merging this commitment’s data publication efforts with these integrity procedures can contribute to making them binding to the ministry.
• Add targeted data to the list of high-value data sets to be made mandatory for publication. Commitment 7 of this action plan foresees the implementation of Law 179 on open data. One of its activities will be to identify potential high-value data sets to publish on gov.ro, which are currently not included in the provisions of Law 179. Data on local development funds falls on the list of high-value data sets included in paragraph 4 of Law 179’s annex, in categories such as data on public procurement, public money allocation, or public expenditures made at the local level. However, data on topics such as the applied criteria for the projects’ approvals, or projects in which criminal irregularities have been identified, can be added to the list.
• Develop a mechanism for citizens to flag potential misuse of public funds (i.e., complaints portal or whistleblower mechanisms). The MDLPA could further encourage public participation and accountability by developing mechanisms or guidance for users to report potential cases of corruption and misuse of public funds. This mechanism could be added directly to the national open data portal and the MDLPA’s website, or it could be separate.
• Expand the list of data sets to be published by the MDLPA for both programs. In the IRM Design Report of Romania’s 2018–2020 action plan, EFOR suggested certain information on the PNDL that the MDLPA can prioritize making public. [39] This consisted of the following: selection methodology for projects put forward by the local public administration (i.e., markers used to select among competing projects); list of local administrations that applied for funding under the PNDL but were not granted it; official justification note that local public administrations put forward to receive funding; and a list of public procurements made by local administrations for spending national investment funds. While the MDLPA has made the complete list of local administrations that submitted funding proposals public for the Anghel Saligny Program (but not for the PNDL), the ministry did not take the rest of the suggestions. These could be added to the list of targeted data for publication.