The team leader of IPRE’s Europeanization and Rule of Law programme, Adrian Ermurachi, kindly agreed to an interview for the FES/APE foreign policy newsletter, in which we discussed administrative reform and what a flexible and functional architecture of state institutions in the Republic of Moldova should look like, within European parameters. We talked about the implementation of EU requirements related to public administration, but also about making the consultation process between Parliament and civil society experts more transparent. You can read all these details in the following interview:

What progress has been made in public administration reform since last year and where are we now with the implementation of EU requirements in this area?

If we talk about what has changed in the field of public administration reform compared to last year and what the European Commission highlights, there are certain elements related to public institutions, local public administration reform, the implementation of the local public administration reform strategy, and other very specific commitments we have to the EU.

Returning to progress, first of all, we can mention that, at least at the policy level, at the macro level, we have implemented about 75 percent of the actions in the program for achieving the public administration reform strategy. This is not a bad result, but we cannot say that it is good either, because it means that it is a challenge for this year and next year. The challenge lies in the fact that this year and next year actually bring additional actions. Any backlog from previous years remains valid for this year. Therefore, if we do not clear the backlog, we will not be able to achieve our objectives.

An important issue, I would say, even if it is only at the document stage for now and is to be implemented step by step, is the approval of the roadmap for public administration reform.

This is a benchmark in the process of Moldova’s accession to the European Union, known in diplomatic relations with the EU as an “opening benchmark,” which specifically refers to this roadmap in the field of public administration reform.

Given that this document correlates with other policy and planning documents, it is one that is expressly requested by the European Commission for the opening of negotiations. Therefore, it is of considerable importance. The major challenge remains that all the actions included in this roadmap are implemented on time and meet the objectives.

With regard to the issue of administrative-territorial reform, we can mention that the law on administrativeterritorial structure has been amended and that we finally have two groups of administrative-territorial units that have completed virtually all the legal steps for amalgamation – one in Leova and the other in Fălești.

The one in Leova comprises the town of Leova itself, which is merging with several surrounding villages, while the one in Fălești also consists of several localities that are merging. So, it remains to be seen how this will be implemented in practice, which will involve elections, as we do not have a single local public authority. More importantly, however, we need to see what lessons have been learned from these reforms.

I could also point out here to the need to approve a primary regulatory framework, which comes as a related recommendation for public administration reform. Specifically, we are talking about the law on public institutions and a related regulatory framework, where the government has a clear recommendation to come up with a norm to regulate the law on public institutions.

Complex administrative reform

Is it possible to carry out a modern administrative reform that would abolish these Soviet-style districts and then implement other administrative units based on the European model? How difficult is such an action and do you think that political interests still stand in the way of such a reform, considering that we currently have about 900 municipalities in the Republic of Moldova?

The reform of local public administration or administrative-territorial reform specifically targets firstlevel administrative-territorial units, i.e., municipalities, local public authorities, villages, and towns. It does not target districts, because districts would follow, as provided for in the strategy and programme, in the second phase, when there will be a very clear vision on the reform of local public institutions of level I, meaning approximately 900 municipalities.

But let us not forget that we also have 32 districts, which are in fact level II. And this is a big problem, because over time, powers have always been excluded or transferred from districts to level I local public authorities, i.e. to villages. However, resources have not migrated entirely from one side to the other. In particular, I am referring to the human resources that have remained at the district level. Therefore, it is a decision related to the districts, and their number needs to be optimized.

This is a political decision. It is a courageous decision and an important one for local structures, including from the point of view of local government. The latter has a direct correlation with central government, regardless of which party is in power.

Appropriate salaries

We have enough staff and officials in state institutions to implement the reforms required by the EU. How do you view the policy of attracting good specialists in relation to the salaries offered by the state?

If we look at the central level, salaries have improved quite a bit over the last few years. Any civil servant at the central level will confirm this. Unfortunately, salaries have been somewhat offset by fairly high inflation. Even if it has not been felt so much in terms of purchasing power, at least the level of salaries has increased.

Moreover, at the level of central public authorities, which are mainly located in Chisinau, salaries are now quite competitive with the private sector. From my point of view, this is a fairly important step forward. This can also be seen in the staff turnover, which is no longer as high within public authorities as it was a few years ago.

The problem remains with local public authorities at level I, where even though there has been a small salary increase, salaries have remained quite low. Thus, purchasing power remains quite low, which makes these positions less attractive.

Therefore, the entire salary framework needs to be reviewed. In this regard, we also have a recommendation from the European Commission to review the salary model, which needs to become more competitive compared to the private sector. At the same time, the recommendation is that salaries should become more uniform.

Currently, there are significant disparities between institutions, which creates challenges for institutions with lower salaries and represents an advantage for institutions with higher salaries. This issue needs to be examined, and work is currently underway in this regard.

Architecture tailored to development needs

How do you see the architecture of the agencies under the Government and what is the most efficient European model for their subordination and functioning?

We have two types of agencies: agencies that report to ministries and agencies that report directly to the government.

If we talk about good practices in the EU, the European Commission does not necessarily come and tell us what the best model is. The EC provides space for each state to decide for itself how to organize its public administration structure so that it is efficient, delivers results, and functions in accordance with EU principles.

The EC insists strongly on compliance with several principles of separation of powers between agencies, specifically the separation of agencies that develop policies from those that implement them.

At the same time, the government has some initiatives through which it is trying to bring a number of agencies under the authority of ministries to implement policies. This is a step forward, but at the same time we must understand that the problem is not necessarily where this agency is located, whether it is under the authority of the government or a ministry. This can increase the efficiency of an agency, because as long as a ministry develops, for example, policies in the field of health, it would obviously want to have agencies in the field of medicines or pharmaceuticals under its authority.

We must understand that, in addition to their subordinate relationship, these agencies also face a number of internal challenges, as mentioned above. With regard to the level of remuneration within the agencies, it is lower than in the ministries, which again affects staff retention. Some people prefer, after gaining a certain amount of experience, to leave the agencies for either ministries or the private sector.

This is the first challenge these agencies face, and it needs to be addressed. The European Commission is paying close attention to these details.

How do you view consultations with civil society and the transparency of certain processes in terms of broader consultation with associations on certain important laws? Have the authorities complied with these EU requirements regarding public debates with civil society?

Unfortunately, the approach varies from one institution to another. However, at the level of the government and ministries, there is a noticeable improvement from one year to the next in the consultation process with civil society. More specifically, state institutions are allowing more time for consultations, feedback, and for explaining in summary tables what has been taken into account and what has not.

On the other hand, a chronic problem that remains is what happens at the parliamentary level. This has been particularly evident in the last sessions of this year. Practice shows that where consultations are desired, they are avoided. Laws end up being promoted very quickly, without consultation. This is especially true for complex regulations, such as those relating to law enforcement agencies, for example.

The most telling example was the law on the legal profession. It was returned to Parliament by President Maia Sandu, but what happened at the parliamentary level with this law, which was practically not consulted, was not right. Parliament could not proceed with a law in the manner it chose to do so, without proper consultation, as required by good practice. We have a big problem here.

With regard to Parliament’s compliance with the consultation process, it is pointless to consult 90 precent of the laws if the 10 percent that are crucial and have a significant impact are not consulted and are enacted hastely.

Thank you!