Item 3b Development Strategies and infrastructure planning frameworks: State of play in central Asia and the Caucasus
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•155 views
The document discusses development strategies and infrastructure planning frameworks in Central Asia and the Caucasus. It finds that most countries in the region have yet to develop long-term development strategies beyond 2030 and lack quantified targets and defined government responsibilities. While some countries have experimented with new coordinating bodies, most countries lack strong inter-ministerial coordination on infrastructure decisions. As a result, some infrastructure investments have continued patterns that do not fully support countries' economic diversification and climate goals. The document recommends that countries develop long-term decarbonization strategies, identify infrastructure projects aligned with long-term goals, and enhance data transparency to support analysis and monitoring.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Item 3b Development Strategies and infrastructure planning frameworks: State of play in central Asia and the Caucasus
Similar to Item 3b Development Strategies and infrastructure planning frameworks: State of play in central Asia and the Caucasus (20)
More from OECD Environment
More from OECD Environment (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Item 3b Development Strategies and infrastructure planning frameworks: State of play in central Asia and the Caucasus
- 1. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING FRAMEWORKS: STATE OF PLAY IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASUS Douglas HERRICK Policy Analyst and GREEN Action Task Force Secretary, Green Growth and Global Relations Division, Environment Directorate Paris, 30 September 2019
- 2. Institutional set-up and coordination Better aligning infrastructure decisions with long-term goals Long-term strategies 2 Agenda 2 3 1
- 3. Why is strategic infrastructure planning so important? • “What countries build today will determine their emissions and vulnerability to a changing climate for decades to come” OECD/The World Bank/UN Environment (2018), Financing Climate Futures: Rethinking Infrastructure • Planning is one of the six transformative areas identified by the 2018 OECD-UNEP- World Bank report Financing Climate Futures: Rethinking Infrastructure
- 4. • Long-term development strategies – allow planning for transformational changes by looking beyond business and political cycles – set long-term goals against which to track progress and screen projects • An effective institutional set-up – clearly defines responsibilities and translates long-term goals into concrete actions – coordinates and consults with stakeholders across ministries, sectors and regions • Both elements enable the reconciliation of infrastructure decisions with long-term goals – if strategies’ long-term goals (including environmental and social goals) are taken into account in the decision-making process – if stakeholders’ input (from across the governments’ ministries/agencies, industries, NGOs, civil society) is taken into account Why is strategic planning so important?
- 5. Institutional set-up and coordination 2 Better aligning infrastructure decisions with long-term goals 3 Long-term strategies 5 Agenda 1
- 6. • Majority of strategies extend only to 2020 or 2030 – Only Kazakhstan has a development strategy to 2050 • Many lack quantified, measurable targets and clearly defined responsibilities across government bodies • No countries covered in the report have long-term low- emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) – Ukraine is the only country in the former Soviet Union that has submitted a LT-LEDS to the UNFCCC Most countries in the region have yet to elaborate long-term development strategies
- 7. Kazakhstan 2050 Trans. Green Econ Nurly Zhol Strat Plan 2025 DP 18-20 NDS 2040 NDS 2030 Mid-term Dev 16-20 Trans. Sustainable Dev National Socioeconomic Dev Programme 11-30 Five Priority Directions Development strategies: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan 2020 2030 2040 20502010
- 8. Azerbaijan 2020 Strategic Roadmaps Georgia 2020 GP 16-20 GP 18 Action Plan, Green Dev Policy Sustainable Dev Vision 2030 GP 16-20 Development strategies: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Mongolia 2020 2030 2040 20502010
- 9. – Clear quantitative targets and defined responsibilities across the government – Well-defined hierarchy and links between strategies – Nurly Zhol infrastructure strategy aligned with China’s Belt and Road Initiative Kazakhstan 2050 and Nurly Zhol Example of long-term strategic planning
- 10. OECD Framework for the Governance of Infrastructure: Getting Infrastructure Right (2017) Ten dimensions or “success factors” Policy options to identify an enabling environment Building on several OECD instruments (public procurement, integrity, budgeting, MLG)
- 11. 1. Develop a strategic vision for infrastructure – A means to go beyond silos and balance of multiple objectives – Long term vision with a flexible approach – Link to budget allocations and fiscal framework 2. Choose how to deliver infrastructure – Use of data and cost-benefit analysis – Choose a delivery model based on project size and profile, source of revenues, possibility to measure usage, uncertainty levels and risks. 3. Co-ordinate infrastructure policy across levels of government – Reduce gaps, overlaps, or contradictions – Alignment of strategic priorities – Economies of scale Strategic Vision and Planning
- 12. Most OECD countries have an overall long-term strategic infrastructure vision EST SWE AUS LUX CHE CHL CZE DEU DNK FRA HUNISR NOR SVK SVN AUT ESP GBR GRC IRL ITA JPN MEX NLD NZL PRT TUR Sectoral and overall (12) Onlysectoral (11) Onlyoverall (2) None (2) Source: OECD (2018), Survey on Capital Budgeting and Infrastructure Governance
- 13. Better aligning infrastructure decisions with long-term goals 3 Long-term strategies Institutional set-up and coordination 13 Agenda 2 1
- 14. • Countries have experimented with new coordinating bodies in recent years – e.g. Uzbekistan’s commissions on each of its priority areas • Most countries lack strong bodies to coordinate decisions on infrastructure development across key sectors • Inter-ministerial bodies on climate change meet irregularly and have limited influence on infrastructure decisions Inter-ministerial coordination needs to be strengthened
- 15. – Cross-ministerial decision- making bodies – Link national priorities to regional and local development plans – Strong links to private sector, academia, civil society Colombia’s Inter-Sectoral Commissions on Climate Change and Infrastructure Source: OECD (2018), Developing Robust Project Pipelines for Low-Carbon Infrastructure, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris Example of coordinating decision-making across sectors and in line with climate goals
- 16. Institutional set-up and coordination 2 Long-term strategies Better aligning infrastructure decisions with long-term goals 16 Agenda 3 1
- 17. • Although economic diversification goals feature prominently across the region, investments have continued to favour status quo – e.g. limited investment in renewables, continued investment in coal and upstream oil and gas in reliant countries Some infrastructure decisions are misaligned with long-term goals
- 18. – 2050 goals translated into 5- year carbon budgets – Project support provided to encourage the development of the UK’s renewable energy potential (e.g. offshore wind) UK’s Committee on Climate Change and its carbon budgets Source: OECD (2018), Developing Robust Project Pipelines for Low-Carbon Infrastructure, Green Finance and Investment, OECD Publishing, Paris Example of taking long-term goals into account for infrastructure and policy decisions
- 20. – Current strategic documents and institutional settings do not fully support economic diversification and climate goals as well as other SDGs What should be done? – Develop long-term decarbonisation strategies using a whole-of- government approach – Develop a list of infrastructure projects aligned with long-term goals – Enhance data availability and transparency to enable further analysis and monitoring Key messages and recommendations from the analysis
- 22. • What are the main barriers to developing long-term strategies and inter-ministerial coordination? Questions for discussion / Вопросы для обсуждения • Какие барьеры препятствуют разработке долгосрочных стратегий и координации между госорганами?
- 23. • How could long-term goals be better taken into account in infrastructure decisions? Questions for discussion / Вопросы для обсуждения • Каким образом можно лучше учитывать долгосрочные цели в решениях касательно инфраструктурных проектов?
Editor's Notes
- They extend beyond business and political cycles They trace a pathway between the present and long-term development goals
- They extend beyond business and political cycles They trace a pathway between the present and long-term development goals
- Kazakhstan is the only country with an overall economic development strategy to 2050. The Kyrgyz Republic has one to 2040, while Turkmenistan’s main development strategy extends to 2030.
- In the Caucasus, overall strategies extend only to 2020, but Azerbaijan has adopted a series of sectoral Strategic Roadmaps (covering the economy’s main sectors) to 2025. Long-term vision, however, is missing
- Colombia has two inter-sectoral commissions that coordinate decision making on strategic infrastructure projects and on climate change with representation from across the government (ministries of transport, energy, finance, environment, interior…). The Climate Change commission is chaired by the Ministry of Environment, while the Infrastructure commission is chaired by the Ministry of Transport. Major infrastructure projects can be submitted by public or private sector actors, and then ministries in charge of particular sectors submit the most appropriate proposals (in line with the objectives of national development plans) to the Inter-Sectoral Commission for inclusion in the list of prioritised “Projects of National Strategic Interest”. Before the creation of the climate change commission, action on climate change in regional governments and across the national government’s ministries and agencies was piecemeal and uncoordinated. The commission brings together representatives of key ministries and Colombia’s regional governments to streamline messaging and priorities on climate change mitigation and adaptation. It identifies where more financing is necessary and ensures coherence in the implementation of Colombia’s NDC across regions and sectors in the country
- Reference conclusions from Alin’s presentation
- ***
- The Commission tracks progress towards mitigation and adaptation goals regularly and flags priority action areas for aligning policies with the UK’s 2050 climate strategy
- is it the silo culture where line ministries and departments do not communicate or do not share common goals? Conflicting interests between industrial development and climate goals?
- if there are conflicting view between different ministries, do we need high-level political ownership of long-term visions and strategies to mediate the different views across sectoral ministries?