With funding by the European Union © 2024 International Bank of Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. All queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202- 522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. ii Acknowledgements This report was prepared based on insights gained from the implementation of an advisory project funded by the European Commission (EC) as part of the Part II Europe 2020 Programmatic Single-Donor Trust Fund (No. TF073870), EC Contract Number 2022CE160AT229. The counterpart for this project (Technical Assistance Facility for Sustainable Urban Development in Greece) was the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), Greece and Cyprus Desk. The report has been developed under the guidance and supervision of Christoph Pusch (Practice Manager, Urban and Disaster Risk Management, Europe and Central Asia), Ellen Hamilton (Lead Urban Specialist), and Annely Koudstaal (Program Manager, Southern Europe). It was prepared by Carli Venter (Senior Urban Development Specialist) with inputs from Damaris Bangean (Urban Expert) and Farhana Sonia Ahmad (Urban Expert). The broader project implementation team includes Laura Diniz (Urban Development Specialist), Yondela Silimela (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Nikolaos Schmidt (Senior Operations Officer), Mihai Dutu (Urban Expert), Konstantinos Antonopoulos (Senior Policy Expert), and Maria Sitzoglou (Senior Urban Sustainability Expert). Contributions were provided by locally based experts Elena Samourkasidou, Yannis Tolias, Efstathia Petroulia, and Maria Gennadiou. Additional support was also provided by Eleni Founti. The following peer reviewers provided valuable guidance during the internal review process: Paul Kriss (Lead Urban Specialist), Soraya Goga (Lead Urban Specialist) and Anna Banaszczyk (Regional Development consultant). The team would also like to thank DG REGIO’s team, namely Carsten Rasmussen, Konstantinos Niafas, Nassos Sofos, Yiannis Solomonidis, Angeliki Kavallieratou, Elehn Banavas, Matina Papaki, and Natasa Kouskouni for their continuous support to the project. iii A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Abbreviations ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act CF Cohesion Fund CoE Council of Europe CoP Communities of Practice CPL City Planning Labs DG REGIO Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy DRM Disaster Risk Management EC European Commission EQI European Quality of Government Index ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund ESF+ European Social Fund Plus ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union EUI European Urban Initiative FCV Fragility, Conflict, and Violence GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System HRM Human Resource Management IBNET International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community IT Information Technology ITI Integrated Territorial Investment JTF Just Transition Fund KPI Key Performance Indicator LICs Low-Income Countries (LICs) LGI Local Government Initiative M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MICs Middle-Income Countries MSDI Municipal Spatial Data Infrastructure OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PHARE Pre-accession financial instrument of EU Central and Eastern European countries RFSC Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities SUD Sustainable Urban Development TA Technical Assistance UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development iv CONTENTS Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 4 2.1 Definitions and concepts in academic literature 4 2.2 Definitions from development agencies and a focus on capacity development 6 2.3 Measuring capacity and the results of capacity for local governments 8 2.4 Emerging focus area: Local capacity for climate change 12 3 LOCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EU CONTEXT 14 3.1 Administrative capacity equated to fund absorption 16 3.2 Capacity-building instruments in the 2021–2027 programming period 17 3.3 Networks and Communities of Practice 18 4 CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES 21 4.1 Capacity-building program design 22 4.2 Implementation – activities and outputs 27 4.3 Implementation – challenges, flexibility and results 31 4.4 Key takeaways 35 5 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE EU 37 5.1 People with skills 38 5.2 Tools and technology 39 5.3 Business processes 39 5.4 Authorizing environment 39 5.5 Local and public sector culture 40 6 CONCLUSIONS 42 Annexure A: Greece Project - Details on Support Provided in Each Thematic Area and List of Knowledge Materials Produced 45 List of knowledge materials and deliverables produced 47 Annexure B: Guiding Questions for Applying the Framework during Capacity-Building Design 48 Bibliography 51   v A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Levels and competencies of capacity 6 Table 2: Municipal function classification 9 Table 3: Example of potential improvements in processing time based on project to-be recommendations (Larissa) 30 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Capacity Pyramid 7 Figure 2: Consolidated Municipal Capacity Assessment Framework 10 Figure 3: ITI SUD project phases and average duration (2014–2020 programming period) based on sample of projects 22 Figure 4: Strategic planning landscape at the local level and links to relevant plans at the national and regional levels 24 Figure 5: Two pillars and four thematic areas 25 Figure 6: Proposed activities under each thematic area, including cities to benefit from support 26 Figure 7: Examples of maps highlighting the hazards exposure of the four cities 29 Figure 8: Shifting toward systemic capacity building - an evolving model 33 Figure 9: A framework for systemic local government capacity building 38 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: In the context of climate change: Adaptive capacity 5 Box 2: Measuring and benchmarking water and sanitation utility performance 10 Box 3: From capacity to capability to performance in organizations 11 Box 4: A note on fiscal capacity and adaptation 13 Box 5: EU Cohesion Policy 15 Box 6: The European Quality of Government Index (EQI) 16 Box 7: Long-running Municipal Energy Efficiency Network EcoEnergy in Bulgaria 19 Box 8: Examples of participatory engagements and neighbourhood visions produced 28 Box 9: Example of a holistic approach to capacity building - City Planning Labs and MSDI 41 vi 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction Local governments are tasked with delivering of life and prosperity of people in a place. the most essential of basic services ranging from water and sanitation, transport, social, Just as ubiquitous as the confirmations of safety and security, to planning functions the importance of local government are the and are crucial actors in determining the concerns about local capacity, and particularly development trajectories of their local the negative impacts associated with a lack of communities. This is a result of modern capacity. In academic literature in the field of governance systems that are characterized by public administration, capacity has been the decentralization, which aims to bring political focus of between 5 and 6 percent of articles leadership and decision-making closer to published annually (Christensen and Gazley the citizens, enhancing the responsiveness 2008). The ‘lack of capacity’ has been a historical and accountability of public services (Boex, and global reason for national authorities Williamson, and Yilmaz 2022). The important not in practice transferring functions and role of local governments is rooted in their competences, financial resources, and proximity to and understanding of the local the accompanying rights and obligations, constraints, asset base, economy, and local even if governance systems are considered stakeholders. While there is great variation decentralized in theory (Fiszbein 2005). In in the size and scale of the local government the European Union (EU) context, capacity when considering the range of these local constraints are also often cited as a reason environments (from megacities to small towns), for the slow absorption rates for EU-funded their role remains crucial in determining quality programs or long implementation delays.¹ 1 See EU-specific examples such as Alexandru and Guziejewska (2020); European Committee of Regions (2018); Weber and Latopoulou (2023). 1 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Capacity building is often an objective of participate in to support them with substantial global development efforts but has become contextual development and localisation of a euphemism for training and counting ideas and techniques from elsewhere. participant numbers (Potter and Brough 2004). If approached correctly, it is not a shortcut, Several recent high level EU reports and quick fix or cheap solution to development policy papers explicitly highlight the need to challenges; rather, it implies a long-term strengthen local administrative capacity and investment in people and organizations, the risks to longer term competitiveness and often with much longer timelines than a sustainability if this is not prioritized. The so- single advisory, technical assistance (TA), or called “Draghi Report (European Commission infrastructure project (Eade 1997). Further 2024) underlines the need to improve and definitions will be explored in this report, but reinforce administrative capacity at municipal the United Nations Development Programme level in key sectoral and horizontal policies in (UNDP 2009a) definition underscores this the EU in support of future competitiveness. longer-term and more holistic requirement as This includes specific references to insufficient follows: “capacity development is the process local capacity to effectively carry out through which individuals, organizations and procedures linked to permitting important for societies obtain, strengthen and maintain investment in clean technologies, with 69% of the capabilities to set and achieve their own municipalities reporting a lack of skills related development objectives over time.” In addition, to environmental and climate assessments. The understanding the context or environment 9th Cohesion Report (published in March 2024) within which any capacity development takes also points to the need for institutional and place is vitally important as efforts to improve administrative capacity at sub-national level, capacity are unlikely to succeed if it is narrowly where more than half of public investments approached as only a technical issue (OECD take place, to ensure the sustainability of 2011). This points to the need for a more development strategies. systemic approach to capacity building. This report examines the current In the context of the emerging climate crisis understanding of local government capacity with administrative systems characterized by constraints and capacity-building approaches decentralization and multilevel governance, in the context of country-level implementation the role of the local government is becoming of programs within the Cohesion Policy ever more important, and by extension the landscape of the European Commission role of local government capacity (Susskind (EC). The work is informed by practitioner and Kim 2022). The historical emphasis on fiscal engagements in a limited set of newer member transfers and professional training in capacity states, including Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, building for development is unlikely to be Croatia, and Slovakia, as well as an in-depth sufficient given the interconnected and context- case study of a recently completed capacity- dependent characteristics of climate adaptation. building program in Greece.² The observations Local governments are also increasingly likely and lessons are largely drawn from a focus on to require any networks or partnerships they regional development policies and approaches, 2 Greece Sustainable Cities and Regions through Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) Technical Facility, funded through the EC’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO) and focused on sustainable urban development (SUD) and the ITI instrument. 2 1. INTRODUCTION in the general context of what can be generically EU context with an overview of capacity referred to as Regional Operational Programs building in the context of the Cohesion Policy funded through the EU Cohesion Policy. The and an in-depth case study on the design, report will start with a literature review to implementation, and lessons learned from situate the work within the realm of current a city-level advisory engagement in Greece. public administration academic literature, Finally, a proposed framework or methodology approaches by development agencies, and to support policy makers and development the complexity of responsibilities of local practitioners in designing systemic capacity- governments. Next, the focus shifts to the building approaches is presented. 3 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE 2. Defining Capacity and Capacity Development Any discussion about capacity development groups, organizations, or systems to achieve can easily become generic if the kind of their objectives or perform more effectively. capacity under consideration is not properly defined or narrowed down (OECD 2011). For 2.1 Definitions and concepts in this report, the focus is on local government academic literature capacity, in some instances referred to as municipal capacity or the slightly broader The focus on local government situates the term subnational capacity, which can at work in the realm of public administration, the times also include regional governments. This global move toward decentralization (political, section presents several selected definitions administrative, and fiscal), and the more from a range of fields. It is particularly recent focus on multi-level governance (Shah important to acknowledge that municipal or and Thompson 2004). Different social science local capacity is a multidimensional concept disciplines—political science, economics, (Alm, Paulsson, and Jonsson 2021) which is sociology, organizational science, psychology, a common thread among these definitions, and pedagogy—emphasize different aspects, encompassing various components such as and within the disciplines, there are few, if any, administrative, human resources, policy, uncontested conceptual platforms. However, in f inancial, and organizational aspects. aiming to synthesize the definition, the focus Capacity is also dynamic and has the potential here will be on public administration literature to evolve over time with capacity building which tends to focus on specific aspects of local consistently viewed as a process geared government capacity such as administrative, toward enhancing the ability of individuals, organizational, and managerial. 4 2. DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Administrative capacity, usually implied and facilities) and intangible resources (such as in discussions at the highest level of state reputation and expertise). Others go further and capacity, is historically def ined as “[a use the term to define the local government’s government’s] ability to identify problems, ability to not only acquire resources, but develop and evaluate policy alternatives for also manage these resources strategically in dealing with them, and operate government the long term and adapt to changing needs programs” (Jeong 2007 citing Hermit 1981). (Andrews, Beynon, and McDermott 2016). The It refers to the intrinsic ability of the public local government’s ability to achieve long-term administrative system and is usually broken goals and solve problems ultimately affects its down into functions or groups of functions effectiveness (Bryan and Isett 2013; Gasco- dependent on the context or specific sector Hernandez et al. 2022). that is the focus of the analysis (Addison 2009). For the local government, this is often defined A final concept to consider is managerial or as the ability to conduct policy management, management capacity which comprises the resource management, and program abilities and skills (competencies, knowledge, management (Petak 2006). Many studies equate and decision-making) of individuals or human resources capacity (number and skills managers within a local government to of staff) to administrative capacity, and some effectively plan, organize, lead, and control consider employee permanence or stability and activities (Donahue, Selden, and Ingraham organizational structure as important (Piña and 2000), while others bring in factors such as Avellaneda 2017). capital management, financial management, human resource management (HRM), information Organizational capacity, a second concept, goes technology (IT) management, and leadership as beyond the ability to carry out administrative being part of the ‘management systems’, that tasks or the structure to also consider how have an important part to play in delivering high local governments adapt, innovate, and performance. Other theories argue that the effectively govern in a changing and dynamic benefits of management capacity are best realized environment to achieve a mission (Gasco- when systems and actions are coordinated and Hernandez et al. 2022). Some scholars define it includes leadership as a key element required for as the ability of the local government to acquire management capacity to yield positive outcomes various tangible (such as money, technology, (Andrews and Boyne 2010). Box 1: In the context of climate change: Adaptive capacity Adaptive capacity is defined as “the capacity of socio-economic, structural, institutional and technological adjustments of a human system to generate adaptation measures in the face of climate change in order to mitigate potential effects, to exploit opportunities, or face the consequences” (Smit and Skinner 2002). It can be argued that the adaptive capacity of local municipalities and institutions will be crucial to support their local communities in future adaptive pathways. 5 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Finally, the different concepts are clearly government capacity (or in this case a single interrelated, and most scholars have not local government’s capacity) interacts with and attempted to develop overarching frameworks; has counterparts in nongovernmental actors rather, they emphasize the heterogeneity and organizations, the political environment, of different definitions (El-Taliawi and Van and business and interagency interactions, Der Wal 2019). One such leading paper (Wu, which on their part also need a certain amount Ramesh, and Howlett 2015) presents table 1 of capacity for the overall government policy to demonstrate that capacity results from the environment to be effective and yield results. combinations of skills and resources at each Individual and organizational capacity is level, while the interplay between different further nested in a system where issues such competencies can explain cases of policy as trust and a supportive political authorizing failure or success. Another important point to environment³ play a crucial role in ensuring highlight from this work is that a specific entity’s proper resource allocation to sustain capacity. Table 1: Levels and competencies of capacity Levels of resources and capabilities Skills and competencies Analytical Operational Political Individual Individual analytical capacity Individual operational capacity Individual political capacity Organizational Organizational analytical Organizational operational Organizational political capacity capacity capacity Systemic Systemic analytical capacity Systemic operational capacity Systemic political capacity Source: Extracted from Wu, Ramesh, and Howlett (2015). 2.2 Definitions from development original reference in the 1992 Declaration on agencies and a focus on Sustainable Development states that capacity capacity development development encompasses “human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional and While definitions of capacity usually focus on resource capabilities” (Allred, Chatrchyan, and some sort of ability or availability of specific Tsintsadze 2022). Some of the most frequently resources, capacity development focuses utilized definitions of capacity development are on the process to develop these abilities or provided below: resources. The concept of capacity development is closely linked to and has evolved along with • OECD-DAC (2006): “The process whereby the concept of sustainable development, and people, organizations and society as a many definitions of the concept are therefore whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt attributed to development agencies. An and maintain capacity over time”. 3 The concept of an ‘authorizing environment’ in the realm of public administration is linked to the concept of public value creation and specifically the work of Mark Moore (with the seminal publication in 1997: Creating public value: Strategic management in government). This is often grouped in literature as part of a school of thought around public value governance which emerged in response to a more networked, multi-actor and multi-sector view of the role of government in society (Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg 2014). 6 2. DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT • UNDP (2008): “The process through which systems, particularly approaches to building individuals, organizations and societies systems capacity, in the context of complex obtain, strengthen and maintain the developmental challenges (Baser and Morgan capabilities to set and achieve their own 2008). Approaching capacity development development objectives over time”. solely as a technical issue is cautioned against, as understanding the broader context or • World Bank (2009): “A locally-driven process environment is deemed vital for successful of learning by leaders, coalitions and improvement efforts (OECD 2011). other agents of change that brings about changes in sociopolitical, policy-related, A very useful framework, from the field and organizational factors to enhance of health policy and planning, argues that local ownership for and the effectiveness rather than trying to f ind a universal and efficiency of efforts to achieve a definition for capacity development, the development goal” (Otoo, Agapitova, and concept can be approached as a pyramid or Behrens 2009). hierarchy of needs (figure 1). The authors argue that capacity development is easier In short, capacity development includes and more technical from top (tools) to more approaches, methodologies, and plans that difficult at the foundational level (structures, seek to improve performance at different systems, and roles). Time is an important social levels (Analoui and Danquah 2017). element to consider in any capacity-building They are therefore set differently by different effort, with capacity shifts relating to the organizations and in different contexts, but easier and more technical tools dimension (just as in the academic literature) development quicker to achieve than the more sociocultural agency definitions point to capacity at multiple changes associated with structures, systems, levels (and the opportunities to develop and roles. In more detailed iterations of this capacity at these levels), including that of model, adopting a systemic capacity-building organizations, individuals, collective or group approach is achieved by the four-tier hierarchy capabilities, and systems. Here, it is important being broken down into its constituent pieces to highlight the introduction of the focus on and so operationalized. (See Figure 1). Figure 1: The Capacity Pyramid Source: Adapted from Potter and Brough 2004. 7 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE 2.3 Measuring capacity and the results of three independent variables in the model) the of capacity for local governments proxy is ratio of government personnel with a postgraduate qualification. This specific study There is a crucial distinction to be made interestingly found that the three types of between measuring capacity (presence/ capacity independently had very little impact absence, high/low) as indicating potential on results, but the interaction of the three or as an input and measuring procedural or capacities has a significant positive impact. output results of said capacity (Fukuyama 2013; van Popering-Verkerk et al. 2022). In Another area of study focuses on government short, capacity measurement is possible without efficiency—the ratio of output to input of analyzing whether this capacity is successfully administrative services (Distor and Khaltar applied or leads to better performance. This has 2022) or how output or outcomes are produced resulted in an active industry producing capacity with the least resources (Oh, Jeong, and Shin assessments, frameworks, and tools often 2019. The focus in these studies often includes measuring or quantifying inputs. Best practice expenditures, utilization of or access to grants, models view capacity as process and structure, and fiscal capacity and further often includes would include some quantitative and qualitative multiple input and outputs as part of the models characteristics (Selden and Sowa 2004), and developed. As an example, a study of 340 would be operationalized for the specific context Chilean municipalities measured organizational in which it is applied (for example, considering capacity across three dimensions (capability, the unique and very specific dimensions of local expertise, and human resources) and showed government in this case). that capacity positively affects government effectiveness in acquiring grants. Government One view of capacity measurement focuses on effectiveness in this case was operationalized effectiveness—the degree to which goals and as the percentage of municipal grant projects objectives are achieved, often measured by approved, considering both the number of the outputs and outcomes of public services applications and amounts secured (Piña and (Oh, Jeong, and Shin 2019). Drawing links Avellaneda 2017). A study on administrative between capacity and government performance intensity in Australia (the cost of administrative historically entailed a simplified narrowing operations) found that it affected the efficiency down of capacity to single factors (for example, of rural councils more than the efficiency of number of staff), but recent literature has urban councils (Tran and Dollery 2023). Another started to apply more sophisticated measures. study with a large sample size (1,470 Mexican Several publications using high-quality panel municipalities) considering organizational data and regression analysis to review the impact factors and staff characteristics found the of various types of local government capacity number of computers per employee was the on infrastructure delivery4 provide interesting main variable explaining the efficiency of insights into which components of capacity are municipal governments (Salazar-Adams 2024). more closely correlated with specific results. In these studies, there is still a need to use proxy Due to the wide range of responsibilities indicators for some measures, for example, for assigned to local governments, it is somewhat the Indonesia context analytical capacity (one more challenging to assess capacity and 4 See, for example, Setiawan et al. (2022) on Indonesia and Choi (2021) on Republic of Korea. 8 2. DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT results than it would be for a more narrowly direct services (such as water supply, waste focused single sector or government management, and transport) and at the same function (for example, health, policing, other time perform several indirect functions to administrative functions such as population enable the delivery of these. Table 2 outlines registry, and so on). Local governments are in the broadest terms functions that are often responsible for many direct functions and assigned to the local level. Table 2: Municipal function classification Category Functions Regulatory functions • Development planning, urban planning, and construction permits • Environmental protection • Commercial and health regulations • Traffic management Community services and • Economic development (trade fairs, enterprise zones, tourism, and rural development) their infrastructure • Education and school facilities • Social services (family care, social work, and social housing) • Health centers and sanitation • Cultural services, facilities, and events (theaters, festivals, libraries, and sports) • Communal police, fire service, and rescue/civil protection • Registers and certifications (civil status, population, and property/cadastre) Public utilities and • Water supply and distribution and sewerage their infrastructure • Waste management (collection, disposal, and treatment/recycling) • Urban heating and energy supply • Public transport, roads and lighting, and car parks • Public gardens and green areas Indirect functions • Human resources management and development • Procurement of goods and services and legal advice • Budgeting, tax collection, accountancy and bookkeeping, and internal audit • Maintenance of buildings and equipment, catering, and cleaning • Electronic data processing Source: Toolkit Manual for Inter-Municipal Cooperation (2010). Council of Europe (CoE), UNDP, and the Local Government Initiative (LGI) of the Open Society. In practice, effectiveness and efficiency are for the context-specific local government also usually jointly considered, and linking performance regulations in South Africa, multiple elements of capacity with multiple referenced as the third dimension in the types of results across different services model, Municipal Service Delivery Process). It can become complicated. One example of a should also be noted that utility services (water, framework attempting this for engineering electricity, gas, and so on) are often delivered services or utility provision is depicted in figure through government-owned utility companies 2. The model links organizational capacity or entities, allowing them to function as (in this case individual, institutional, and focused service provision bodies with a narrow environmental) to municipal service delivery focus on their specific mandates. An example of and then longer-term results (outcomes) (van benchmarking and performance measurement Baalen, Schutte, and Von Leipzig 2015). The for water and sanitation utilities is provided self-assessment framework is customized in box 3. 9 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Figure 2: Consolidated Municipal Capacity Assessment Framework Water Provision Refuse Removal Sanitation Municipal Roads Electricity Provision Stormwater Management Source: van Baalen, Schutte, and Von Leipzig 2015. Note: IDP = Integraded Development Plan ; SDBIP = Service Delivery and Business Implementation Plan. Box 2: Measuring and benchmarking water and sanitation utility performance The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation (IBNET) was set up by the World Bank in 1994 to encourage water and sanitation service providers to improve their performance by establishing a database that would offer, among other things, a functional benchmarking tool in multiple languages, utility-specific reports, and a tariff database toolkit. The tool sets forth a common set of data definitions and a minimum set of cost and performance indicators and provides software to allow easy data collection and calculation of the indicators, while it also provides resources to analyze data and present results. In the past two decades, IBNET has been recognized for its achievements in • Establishing standard performance indicators that reflect utility performance, • Promoting transparency by publishing the indicators of utilities that participated in IBNET, and • Developing and using benchmarking methodologies that allow for comparing otherwise very different utilities with each other. Since its inception, IBNET has collected data from over 5,000 water and sanitation service providers from over 150 countries across the world, representing around one-third of the world’s total number of water and sanitation service providers. Source: https://newibnet.org/. 10 2. DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Box 3: From capacity to capability to performance in organizations Performance describes what an organization accomplishes, while capacity and capability are important because they influence performance. The three concepts are highly correlated, but not exactly. Organisations with high capacity are likely to have higher capability to perform better when compared to those with less capacity. However, two institutions with the same capacity could have vastly different performance. The difference can be attributed to context. a. Capacity could refer to general resources, such as having educated staff, access to basic infrastructure, and communications. b. Capability could refer to specific organizational attributes, that is, does the government department have a financial management information system? c. Performance can refer to how the financial management system is used and what is accomplished. It is therefore useful to consider whether ‘capacity-building’ programs should focus on capacity, capability, or performance. Some examples of how this would differ in practice are as follows: • Capacity-building programs can be focused on generic skills and qualifications, that is, programs to train staff in global or standardized practices, for example, training in accounting practices (minimal performance gains expected). • A more advanced approach would involve some context-based customization, that is, on-the-job training with a standardized skills focus (greater performance gains expected). • Programs with very high context specificity can be expected to have an even higher impact on performance, that is, programs focusing on establishing core organizational systems, work processes, and so on, while working with staff in implementing the performance of those systems. Such programs are more resource intensive and require much in-depth context understanding to formulate and manage. • Performance-oriented approaches, that is, benchmarking, value chain, LEAN, and so on, can lead to a change of action and outcome, but the root causes of problems in performance may often have to do with weak capabilities. Many ‘performance improvement’ programs will focus on addressing improvements in capability to help ensure that performance improvements are sustainable over time. The takeaway is that generic capacity is important, but specific capability is even more important for an organization. Local government capability is therefore even more difficult to exactly define, given the multiple service delivery requirements and mandates. Source: https://www.abyrint.com/capacity-capability-performance/#:~:text=Capacity%20could%20refer%20to%20i.e,a%20finan- cial%20management%20information%20system%3F. 11 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE The issue of digitalization and digital technical resource capacity (Allred, Chatrchyan, transformation, and particularly the potential and Tsintsadze 2022). A recent study in New for new technologies to improve service York State (USA) found that climate action at delivery and performance in government, is the local level is best predicted by capacity also a common and recurring theme. Digital variances relating to strong climate beliefs and transformation involves the use of digital knowledge, and contextual variables of being technologies and data to change the way in an urban municipality versus a rural one as of working and interaction between public well as participation in climate networks. Local administration stakeholders. It requires dedicated governments also tend to suffer from the ‘tragedy investments in infrastructure and equipment of urgency’ with adaptation investments and and aim at making the work of officials more planning for the long-term future perpetually efficient and faster (Androniceanu & Georgescu, placed behind more immediate or salient issues 2023). Other reported benefits include greater (Moser et al. 2019). transparency, increased accessibility for citizens, better data management and analytics, Successful capacity-building efforts in various allowing for more informed decision-making areas of climate action, including for example and resource allocation. While digitization energy- efficiency programs, increasingly holds immense potential to help overcome local point toward the importance of national capacity challenges, it has also given rise to an institutions taking ownership of the capacity- industry selling the latest technological tools building process (Klinsky and Sagar 2022). As under the banner of Smart Cities. It should be example, even the provision of clear guidance clear that to reap the potential benefits some for the implementation of new programs can minimum level of local capacity is required to make a difference, especially for lower-capacity identify and implement appropriate solutions. localities. In the USA, a review of implementation of clean energy funds under the American 2.4 Emerging focus area: Local capacity Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 for climate change showed that initial strong performance in terms of access to and spending of funds is associated The Organization for Economic Co-operation with strong implementation capacity, measured and Development (OECD) estimates that in as relevant policy experience and management 2018–2019 alone, climate-related capacity quality. However, increased federal guidance development activities represented over eliminated the impact of experiential capacity US$10 billion of overseas development by the end of the second year of the program assistance on average annually (Asensio, (Carley, Nicholson-Crotty, and Fisher 2014). Blaquier, and Sedemund 2022. Local governments have considerable authority over A growing emphasis in academic literature the local implementation of climate change is also on the need to move beyond policies through the management of utilities, imparting technical know-how, including an transportation, infrastructure, waste disposal, understanding of environmentally beneficial and land-use planning within their jurisdictions. technologies, toward a focus on adopting However, the authority and capacity of these a ‘learning by doing’ approach (da Silva local governments to make timely investments 2022). In line with the importance of national in mitigation and adaptation measures varies institutions in driving and delivering technical widely. Key barriers to local climate action are capacity-building efforts, these national often found to be the lack of human, financial, and institutions can also influence approaches 12 2. DEFINING CAPACITY AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT and attitudes at the local level, essentially “the professional training in capacity building for way localities think about the implementation development is unlikely to be sufficient given process” (Carley, Nicholson-Crotty, and Fisher the interconnected and context-dependent 2014). Several studies have shown that this characteristics of climate adaptation. Local can range from impacts such as stimulating governments are also increasingly likely to cooperation and interagency collaboration, require any networks or partnerships they reducing competition, and adherence to sets participate in to support them with substantial of values and principles (Carley, Nicholson- contextual development and localisation Crotty, and Fisher 2014). These national actions of ideas and techniques from elsewhere, as will be a crucial requirement of future success specific contexts matter. Empirical evidence in climate action efforts as a shift toward shows that municipal climate networks as well scenario planning as opposed to master as intergovernmental coordination can help planning is essential to deal with uncertainty overcome capacity limitations, particularly for at the local level (Susskind and Kim 2022). resource-limited rural communities (Allred, Chatrchyan, and Tsintsadze 2022; Cid and The historical emphasis on fiscal transfers and Lerner 2023). Box 4: A note on fiscal capacity and adaptation It stands to reason (and has been confirmed through several studies) that local governments with less fiscal capacity would be less ready to face disasters, underscoring the importance of financial capacities in anticipating and coping with crises. Lower fiscal capacity is logically associated with lower levels of adaptive strategies (for example, changing service delivery or establishing a new service) and more regressive approaches (retrenchment, buffering, and downsizing) in times of crisis. Building a reserve of financial resources in anticipation of adverse events supports potential positive adjustments in case events materialize. A recent study however cast some doubt on these conclusions and suggests that higher financial capacity may in fact have a double-edged effect, where higher resources limit efficiency and exploration, maybe even fostering complacency during times of crises. The authors highlight that this requires further studying, as an alternative explanation could be that higher-resourced localities may already have made necessary investments, therefore requiring less-adaptive investments in comparison to lower-resource localities (that is, interpreted as complacency when it is not). Source: Barbera et al. 2024. 13 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE 3. Local and Administrative Capacity Development in the EU Context The EU, particularly in terms of its strengthen, create, adapt and maintain development support efforts outside of the capacity over time. The phrase capacity EU itself, adopts the definition of capacity development is used advisedly in preference to from the OECD (2008), which notes a the traditional capacity building. The ‘building’ specific shift from capacity building to the metaphor suggests a process starting with term capacity development, although both a plain surface and involving the step-by- terms remain generally in use. The definition step erection of a new structure, based on a reads as follows: “Capacity development is preconceived design. Experience suggests that understood as the process whereby people, capacity is not successfully enhanced in this organizations and society as a whole unleash, way” (European Parliament 2017). 14 3. LOCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EU CONTEXT Box 5: EU Cohesion Policy The Cohesion Policy is a targeted investment program that aims to reduce disparities between regions and countries and to support the EU’s political priorities, such as the digital and green transition. It gives specific attention to regions where economic development is below the EU average and other special regions such as border areas or coal mining regions. Through its various funds, the Cohesion Policy allocations account for about one-third of the entire EU budget. The funds through which the Cohesion Policy is delivered are • The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to invest in the social and economic development of all EU regions and cities, • The Cohesion Fund (CF) to invest in environment and transport in the less-prosperous EU countries, • The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) to support jobs and create a fair and socially inclusive society in EU countries, and • The Just Transition Fund (JTF) to support the regions most affected by the transition toward climate neutrality. Source: EC https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en. The European Commission (EC) considers sought to assess what causes the variation in good governance, which requires good the effective and efficient delivery of the EU administrative capacity at its core and is Cohesion Policy across member states and considered a crucial element of economic regions. Research and policy evaluation has development and cohesion policy (European concluded that administrative capacity is a key Commission 2020). Support for institutional factor in explaining this variable performance and administrative capacity building goes back (Smeriglio et al. 2015). to 1989 with the launch of the PHARE program (a pre-accession financial instrument), Local governments and cities are considered initially providing support for economic instrumental to achieving transformational restructuring in Poland and Hungary and change in the pursuit of climate neutrality then other Central and Eastern European under the European Green Deal, a key countries (Smeriglio et al. 2015). A strong EU policy and legislative package. Several focus on developing administrative capacity frameworks and tools have been established and institution building was a key feature to help with the achievement of climate of the EU enlargement process during the neutrality, including missions focused on early 2000s (Dimitrova 2002). Over the past helping 100 European cities to achieve decade, an expanding body of research has climate neutrality by 2030 and most recently 15 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE an adaptation mission.5 A recent large-scale to increase staff allocation to the climate study of around 400 European cities found transition, and most of the cities expressed a that despite cities’ confidence in the current need for capacity building primarily in terms skills of their staff to address climate neutrality of knowledge and skills—more than half of the issues, there is a clear recognition of the need responders indicated the specific knowledge for assistance in capacity building, particularly needs in terms of climate finance, 40 percent in areas such as climate financing, investment, require skills in investment planning, and and cross-sectoral planning (Shtjefni et al. around 35 percent require skills in cross- 2024). Data show that cities believe they need sectoral matters. Box 6: The European Quality of Government Index (EQI) In the context of the EU Cohesion Policy, it is clear that some regions, sometimes within the same country (think of Trento and Sicily in Italy or Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium), exhibit systematically higher levels of socioeconomic development than others. Also, some regions are more capable of taking advantage of opportunities, such as available funds, than others. Causal identification studies show a significant part of the causality goes from the quality of government to key developmental outcomes. The EQI is a large-scale perception survey, regularly run in the EU since 2010. It produces a subnational data set that allows for the exploration of regional differences. It defines Quality of Government as impartiality in the exercise of public power. To measure it, researchers look at three aspects: impartiality, that is, that the government upholds an impartial treatment of all citizens irrespective of their personal characteristics or connections; corruption, that is, that there is no abuse of public office for private gain, and quality, that is, that the public services are perceived as having high quality. While a subnational lens is applied, the EU regions are statistical units and do not necessarily align with regional or local administrative units. It therefore makes it difficult to equate these results directly to the managerial, administrative, or technical capacity of a single local government unit and will not be further explored for purposes of this report. Source: https://www.gu.se/en/quality-government. 3.1 Administrative capacity equated capacity at the national level in the EU context to fund absorption is traditionally defined as “a Member State is able to fully spend the allocated financial In the EU Cohesion Policy context, resources from the Structural Funds in an administrative capacity building at the local effective and efficient way” and can be linked level has been significantly geared toward to, for example, gross domestic product (GDP) improving EU fund absorption. Absorption levels to funds allocated or utilized (Horvat 5 For more details on EU missions, see https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/ funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/climate-neutral-and-smart- cities_en. 16 3. LOCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EU CONTEXT 2005). Administrative capacity as it relates to toward the short term. Local policy makers fail absorption capacity is then defined as “the to solve fundamental challenges (that is, long- ability and skill of central and local authorities term administrative capacity) because of too to prepare suitable plans, programs and projects strong a focus on the immediate symptoms of in due time, to decide on programs and projects, the challenge, that is, the short-term pressure to arrange the co‐ordination among principal to increase absorption rates. In short, the very partners, to cope with the administrative and strong focus on absorption indicators may well reporting requirements, and to finance and be driving measurement surrogation where supervise implementation properly, avoiding local authorities lose focus on strategy and irregularities as far as possible” (Boeckhout et focus strictly on this metric (Cunico, Aivazidou, al. 2002). and Mollona 2022). Differences in the sheer number of administrative resources available to At the local and regional levels, often the local governments may be another contributing ultimate beneficiaries and implementers of factor, for example, city administrations in these EU funds, there are several additional Southern and Eastern Europe have just 3.6 elements associated with absorption capacity. employees per 1,000 inhabitants, compared to Absorption capacity can be more narrowly 10.6 in the south, 24.2 in the west, and 35.0 in defined as the ability to co-finance EU- the north (LSE Cities 2023). The role of external supported programs and projects, including TA or outsourcing in replacing or substituting the ability to plan and guarantee contributions for government administrative capacity seems in multi-annual budgets and the collection to also be a growing challenge (Terracciano and of contributions from private or public Graziano 2016). partners interested in joint projects (Tiganasu, Incaltarau, and Pascariu 2018). Recent studies 3.2 Capacity-building instruments in measure EU fund absorption as the volume of the 2021–2027 programming period EU funds spent per inhabitant, and a body of work points to positive correlations between In the Cohesion Policy context, the terms local absorption rates and quality of institutions TA and capacity building are often used and negative correlation with levels of income interchangeably, and the focus is very (Marin et al. 2023; Tosun 2014). It should be strongly on capacity for the administrative noted though that high absorption rates are management of CFs. A review of the use of not a sufficient condition for development, as TA funds in the period 2014–2020 (European the impact of funds depends on many factors, Policies Research Center 2020) showed that TA including effectiveness and efficiency of the allocations although only around 3 percent of use of such funds. the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) total budgets amounted to an average of Even with significant and continuous assistance €500 million across member states (EU28 at aimed at improving administrative capacity, the time) and up to as much as €2.6 billion in regional differences, poor performance, and Poland. A sample of programs showed that most low absorption rates persist in many regions TA funding (65 percent) is allocated to human of the EU. Researchers continue to explore resources, including operational staff salaries reasons for this persistence, one recent for intermediate bodies, managing authorities, explanation labelled as ‘decision-making traps’ and audit authorities. About 19 percent of funds suggesting that regional authorities may be were allocated to organizational structures and trapped in systemic decision-making oriented resources, which included subcontracting of 17 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE program management tasks. The lowest share regulation and will not be considered for of TA funding (16 percent) was used for systems thematic concentration. and tools, including management systems. c. • Financing not linked to costs for TA The need to boost the administrative capacity • Commission reimbursement for this type to manage and implement the EU funds is is based on the results to be achieved or particularly prominent in the 2021–2027 the conditions to be fulfilled. Targeted Regulations and programming period. The administrative capacity-building measures aim in the current period is to support more for national authorities, beneficiaries, effective implementation of funds through a and relevant partners can be supported bespoke approach by making available a wider under this option. There is no cap on menu of tools and encouraging more strategic the funding that can be allocated to such use of funding for capacity-building measures measures. Capacity-building measures (European Commission 2020). The 2021–2027 using reimbursement methods that are not programming period broadly makes provision linked to costs are to be programmed as a for funding of three types of capacity building specific priority of the program. and options for combinations of these (European Commission 2020). The options refer mainly to 3.3 Networks and Communities how capacity-building and TA activities can of Practice be designed and financed within the available EU funding envelopes. This does not of course In addition to TA or capacity building for prescribe the technical content or methodologies program implementation at the country to be applied in delivering the capacity support. level, there is also a strong focus on Cohesion The three types are as follows: Policy implementation on supporting technical knowledge generation and sharing • a. Capacity building directly linked to among member states. DG REGIO of the EC is investments. responsible for managing the EU’s Cohesion • Capacity building of program authorities Policy, also known as Regional Policy, and and bodies associated with implementing therefore also plays a leading role in this funds that are directly linked to investments knowledge and capacity ecosystem. Several under the ERDF or the CF, programmed as tools, instruments, and types of supports are a type of action under any of the specific available, including training, frameworks, events, objectives. studies, and IT tools. As part of the Cohesion Policy objectives around European Territorial • b. ‘Standard’ TA (flat-rate or real-cost) Cooperation there is dedicated support for • Different types of capacity-building knowledge exchange, good practice exchange measures needed to ensure that funds and capacity building through Interregional are administered and used effectively can programs. Another key mechanism is the DG benefit from TA. The amount that can be REGIO Peer2Peer+ scheme which enables staff used for this type of TA is limited to the of program authorities and other public bodies percentage set in the common provisions involved in managing and implementing CFs 18 3. LOCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EU CONTEXT to meet and exchange knowledge and good of improvements in the practice of practice on both bilateral and multilateral administration, although mostly small levels.6 Support is broadly structured under scale, limited to single institutions and two pillars: relating to soft skills and practices rather than institutional adjustments (PPMi 2021). • TAIEX-REGIO Peer2Peer. It helps organize Most CoP members only follow the activities short-term exchanges with one or more through the mailing list, blogs, and other peers from other EU countries to meet online communication tools, with a small specific learning needs. These exchanges number of active members who take part in can be organized as either one-off meetings different activities (more than 1,600 registered or a series of events. users and 80 active members). These results should not be discouraging, as studies are • Peer2Peer Communities (Communities increasingly acknowledging the value of of Practice [CoP]). They offers a platform networks in capacity development, particularly to develop a longer-term dialogue with for resource-poor rural localities, both in peers from several EU countries on topics terms of thematic connections such as climate of common interest to allow for in-depth change (Allred, Chatrchyan, and Tsintsadze analysis and co-creation. 2022) and geographical (Mantino, Forcina, and Morse 2023). An example of a targeted A review of the REGIO Peer2Peer program thematic network in energy efficiency from conducted in 2021 found various examples Bulgaria is shared in box 7. Box 7: Long-running Municipal Energy Efficiency Network EcoEnergy in Bulgaria The Municipal Energy Efficiency Network EcoEnergy is a non-profit organization of Bulgarian municipalities for mutual support and activities related to the local policies for the effective use of traditional and alternative energy resources and for ensuring energy safety and opportunities for sustainable development of the municipalities. The network was established as an informal voluntary association of Bulgarian municipalities in 1997 at the initiative of the mayors of 23 municipalities. The network foundation and its first steps were supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the framework of a Municipal Energy Efficiency Initiative project. Between April 1998 and May 2004, its activities were supported mainly by the project Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate GHG Emissions and an Energy Efficiency Demonstration Zone in Gabrovo, financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the UNDP. In April 2003, the participants in the Fifth Conference of the informal association decided to make the association official through its legal registration. On October 27, 2003, an official announcement of Sofia City Court was published for the registration of a non- profit association under the name Municipal Energy Efficiency Network EcoEnergy. 6 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/how/improving-investment/regio-peer-2-peer_en. 19 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE EcoEnergy aims at • Gathering the efforts of the Bulgarian municipalities for achieving better energy efficiency and finding solutions for important national tasks, • Creating conditions for diminishing the burden of energy costs on municipal budgets and use of this money for other activities of high priority, and • Subserving the end users in the municipalities to decrease their expenses and raise public support. Source: https://www.ecoenergy-bg.net/. A dedicated and comprehensive capacity- By providing a platform for cities to share best building approach aimed at enhancing city practices and collaborate on common challenges, capacity in the EU (European Urban Initiative the EUI seeks to build a robust framework for [EUI]) is being implemented in the 2021–2027 integrated urban development. The initiative programming period. There is a strong emphasis includes various activities such as peer reviews, on the implementation of SUD strategies, workshops, and training sessions, all designed policies, and projects. This initiative focuses to equip city officials and urban planners with on fostering innovation, knowledge exchange, the necessary skills and knowledge to drive and peer learning among urban stakeholders. sustainable urban transformation.7 7 For more information, see: https://www.urban-initiative.eu/capacity-building. 20 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES 4. Case Study: Capacity Building and Technical Assistance in Four Greek Cities As part of the design of its Cohesion Policy- Greece opted to apply the ITI tool for related programs for the 2014–2020 EU Sustainable Urban Development (hereafter programming period, Greece adopted the referred to as ITI SUD), but in 2021, toward the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) end of the programming period and while the instrument for the first time. ITI allows member country was in a strong position for the early states to combine funding from different priority approval of its new 2021–2027 program, ITI areas or from several operational programs (for SUD implementation progress was severely example, the different Cohesion Policy funds lagging. Figures reported in December 2021 such as ERDF and ESF, complemented by rural showed that all ITI SUD municipalities had only development funds) to deliver multidimensional around 30 percent of their legally contracted and cross-sectoral interventions. ITI is also operations completed and only 29.4 percent an applicable implementation approach for of their remaining approved operations legally earmarked funds for SUD, with a requirement contracted. The situation was attributed to that each member state must commit at least a the long time frame for SUD strategy making minimum percentage of ERDF funds to SUD (5 and approval (due to limited human resources percent in the 2014–2020 programming period) capacity and complicated procedures) and (European Parliament 2019). appeals against procurement decisions causing 21 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE significant delays and where contracting did An in-person final event was hosted in Athens take place, slow progress and payments due in mid-May 2024. to the COVID-19 pandemic, simultaneously increasing the cost of inputs and material 4.1 Capacity-building program design directly affecting public works contractors. In an initial scoping phase, aimed at In response, the EC’s DG REGIO partnered with diagnosing key challenges and f inding the World Bank in an advisory and TA project entry points for support, the World Bank which aimed to build capacity at the local level technical team conducted in-person visits to to avoid similar delays and challenges in the all participating localities and reviewed local forthcoming new programming period. The strategies and plans for both programming objective was to test hands-on approaches to periods, project implementation progress, capacity building in improving the quality of and processes. The team also conducted a strategies, plans, and projects and accelerating preliminary assessment of the overall policy implementation of the ITI approach, specifically and planning landscape that municipalities in smaller and midsize cities. Four Greek operate within. A small sample of projects was municipalities (Heraklion, Kalamata, Kavala, reviewed to conduct a simplified mapping of and Larissa) opted to participate in the first the administrative processes involved in the 18-month-long pilot phase of the project. The project lifecycle. This revealed extraordinarily project was initiated in October 2022, the long timelines in early administrative phases. initial scoping phase was completed by March If a project could be delivered following the 2023, and delivery of TA commenced shortly fastest times recorded in each project phase thereafter, with completion of support in April during the review, the delivery could take just 2024. Local government elections took place over 1,000 days (2.7 years) compared to the during this period in October 2023, with new average recorded at 2,387 days (6.5 years). administrations taking office on January 1, 2025. Among the selected projects, the process Figure 3: ITI SUD project phases and average duration (2014–2020 programming period) based on sample of projects Average no. days 303 days 943 days 503 days 638 days 603* days SUD Strategy Project preparation Procurement Implementation Project closing development & and approval approval phase Tender Pre-Approval from contract signing from issuance of end Start: MA approval of by Special Managing to issuance of end of of Works Certificate to MA issues launch of SUD Strategy Authority Works Certificate or acceptance of project call for SUDS anticipated project by Local Council MA launches call Call for Tenders end date Municipality submits for projects published SUD to MA MA selects the Contract signed MA approval of project for funding SUD Strategy Municipality accepts financing and projects is included in budget Source: Project Scoping report. 22 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES to project completion can span more than Other key findings include the following: 31 different interactions among various stakeholders. These include the managing • Municipalities face constraints in terms of authority, municipal technical staff, municipal own-source revenue and limited own sources council, other decentralized administration for capital investments—resulting in an offices, tender committee, and contractor. overreliance on the EU and other externally funded government programs to meet The analysis further revealed that SUD capital investment needs at the local level. strategies are largely designed to meet administrative and finance requirements • There was a growing concern whether with little true integrated investment municipalities will have sufficient funds to planning taking place, beyond concentrating operate and maintain the infrastructure for investments in a specific geographic area. which they are seeking capital funds (that Most SUD strategies also reported holistic aims is, longer-term financial sustainability and and intervention axes, but in fact, they mainly maintenance of assets). addressed physical redesign of urban spaces, infrastructure building, and networks including • Long timelines have significant implications digital facilities. Ongoing integration with other for public participation processes and strategic and spatial planning documents and community buy-in. The time between update with respect to policy developments conceptualization (where community is broadly absent, and timelines are often participation should be at its highest) and misaligned. Strategic planning, budgets, spatial, actual implementation is simply too long and transport, and even climate action plans were can easily result in disillusioned residents rather disconnected from the newly prepared who opt out of future participation if they SUD strategies, although the latter at times do not see results. did include previously identified project interventions. The local planning landscape • Multiple back-and-forth processes between was assessed as extremely complicated regional and financing authorities and local and fragmented across thematic topics and councils to obtain different approvals (that sectors (see figure 4 depicting national and is, multiple approvals for the same project) local planning requirements for a limited set add additional time, even before projects of sectors relevant to SUD). can enter procurement. 23 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Figure 4: Strategic planning landscape at the local level and links to relevant plans at the national and regional levels Spatial planning Operational planning Social Digitalization & governance Resilience to Environment & climate change natural hazards mitigation & adaptation Mobility Energy 1. SPATIAL PLANNING** 4. ENVIRONMENT 6. MOBILITY 1A: Local Urban Plans CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION 6A: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) 1B: Street Design Plans & ADAPTATION 6B: Local Plan for Urban Accessibility 1C: Operational Plan for Public & 4A: Sustainable Energy and Climate Action 6C: National Accessibility Plan with emphasis Communal Spaces Plan (SECAP)* on climate change-climate crisis 1D: Special Urban Plans 4B: Municipal Plan for Emissions Reduction 1E: Intergrated Urban Development 4C: Local Solid Waste Management Plan 7. RESILIENCE TO NATURAL HAZARDS Interventions Plan 4D: Regional Plan for Adaptation to 7A: Local Emergency Response & Impact 1F: Regional Spatial Planning Framework Climate Change Management Plans 1G: National Spatial Strategy 4E: Regional Solid Waste Management Plan 7B: Special Disaster Risk Management Plans 1H: Maritime Spatial Planning Frameworks 4F: National Plan for Climate Adaptation 7C: Regional Emergency Response Plans 4G: National Solid Waste Management Plan 7D: National Plan for DRM 2. OPERATIONAL PLANNING 2A: Operational Program 5. ENERGY 8. SOCIETY 2B: Annual Action Plan 5A: Plans for Energy Efficiency for Buildings 8A: Local Strategy for Social Inclusion* 2C: Annual Technical Plan 5B: Plan for Electric Car Charging 8B: Local Action Plan for Gender Equality 2D: Organisation of Internal Services Plan 5C: Sustainable Energy and Climate Action 8C: Regional Strategy for Social Inclusion and 2E: Budget Plan Plan (SECAP)- some with 4A poverty reduction 8D: National Strategy for Social Inclusion and 3. DIGITALIZATION & GOVERNANCE poverty reduction 3A: Digitalization Strategy (Smart City) 8E: National Strategy for Gender Equality *Not obligatory plans Source: Project scoping report. 24 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES Based on the scoping findings, a capacity- based approaches to decision-making. The building program was designed that would TA effort was structured around four key focus on enhancing the quality of approaches thematic areas that comprise participatory in SUD and improving implementation urban planning, local economic development, processes (Figure 5). While the original aim resilient infrastructure/disaster risk was more strongly focused on absorption management (DRM)/climate change and rates and accelerated implementation, enabling of city management systems and the scoping process pointed to significant tools. The initial list of proposed activities is requirements for capacity on issues relating included as figure 6, and annexure A includes to the basic principles of SUD, participatory more detail on tasks and outputs delivered processes, and the need for evidence- under completed activities. Figure 5: Two pillars and four thematic areas Build municipal capacity for strategic and integrated regional and urban planning Improving implementation Enhancing quality of Sustainable process and systems for ITI SUD Urban Development approaches, (and over time other EU and tools and instruments city level programs) THEMATIC AREA THEMATIC AREA 1 Participatory and inclusive urban 4 Enabling city management Planning regeneration systems, tools and processes 2 Private sector finance mobilization and local business engagement (Local Economic Development) 3 Climate Smart Service Delivery (including Disaster Risk Management & Resilient Infrastructure) Source: Project materials and reports. 25 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Figure 6: Proposed activities under each thematic area, including cities to benefit from support Thematic area of support Heraklion Kalamata Kavala Larissa Thematic Area 1: Participatory and inclusive urban Planning and regeneration 1a. Integrated neighbourhood (precinct) level planning implementation Mastabas Maritime/ Perigali Waterfront 1b. Redevelopment of derelict buildings Central town Central town 1c. Urban Heat Impacts, Green space & citizen science Proposed study tour: Vienna, Austria (to be confirmed) Thematic Area 2: Private sector finance mobilization and local business engagement 2a Economic Development profiles 2b Business Retention and Expansion initiatives (including specifically tourism, MICE, etc. industry engagement) 2c Investment attraction, private sector partnerships in property redevelopment Thematic Area 3: Climate Smart Service Delivery 3a Solid Waste management, recylcing and waste reduction 3b Alternative and e-mobility opportunities (including best practice in pedestrianization) 3c Innovative financing options for green infrastructure 3d Disaster Risk Management & Resilient Infrastructure Thematic Area 4: Enabling city management systems and tools 4a Optimization of project implementation processes 4b Evidence based decision making, data, M&E 4c Citizen participation platforms and open data 4d SUD strategy preparation specific supports as required Source: Project materials and reports. The capacity building and support would be on specific topics, conducting in-depth delivered through a range of mechanisms, but studies, and producing reports on specific foundational to the design was the building identified topics. The project was envisioned of a local community of practitioners and as a platform for convening participant cities networking between the four cities (and ideally (across political and administrative levels) beyond). The mechanisms of delivery included on a regular basis to share findings, lessons, producing practical case studies, either from and best practice. This was also specifically good practice observed in participant cities planned as in-person engagements, potentially or from elsewhere if appropriate, contracting in different locations, to allow for a stronger technical specialist to work with city officials network effect. 26 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES 4.2 Implementation – activities selected neighbourhoods, various training and outputs sessions in preparation for public facing events, step-by step manual for design of The agreed activities were broadly a mixture of participatory engagements for use by other the introduction and application of best practice Greek cities. methodologies or approaches and in-depth city specific research and data collection to support • Derelict buildings - workshop and several planning and implementation processes. engagements around derelict tobacco Both these types of activities were executed warehouses in Kavala, sparked new ideas through additional World Bank contracted around social housing options with case study capacity, specifically a mix of local, regional commissioned from Thessaloniki (where a (EU based) and international consultants new housing authority has been established). and service providers. The aim was to also build the capacity of local service providers • Waterfront re-development - common and consultants outside of government to theme amongst 3 of the cities, produced potentially continue to introduce and deliver a series of EU case studies from small and global methodologies into the future. A detailed medium sized cities, recommendations list of activities executed as well as outputs and (at the request of the Mayor of Kalamata) knowledge materials produced is provide in for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Annexure A, but it is worth highlighting some in the Messinian Gulf and several slide of the key activities here: decks and peer learning events focused on coastal erosion. Participatory and inclusive urban planning and regeneration: • Case study and report on Kalamata’s • Neighbourhood level participatory planning post-earthquake reconstruction (1986 - full participatory process, executed in- onwards) with lessons around using land practice with officials from 3 cities in re-adjustment policies in small cities. 27 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Box 8: Examples of participatory engagements and neighbourhood visions produced Residents providing inputs on the current challenges and identifying possible solutions in the Agia Triada neighborhood (Heraklion), as part of participatory workshops. Accessibility and safety of the area, such as poor sidewalks/pavement, lack of transport, lack of lighting, as well as lack of local amenities (markets) were all key issues raised. Below is a eye view vision of waterfront redevelopment in Kalamata, northern quay of main port basin (prepared by service provider superwien): Urban strategy map and long list of proposed projects for the Periagli area in Kavala (also superwien): 28 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES Local economic development (initially named including identification of key strengths private sector finance mobilization and private and assets and potential growth sectors. sector engagement): Resilient infrastructure and DRM, climate • Slide deck with guidance on Local change (initially named Climate Smart Economic Development and Investment Service Delivery): Promotion activities for small towns, in context of a larger national investment • Extensive geospatial data collection and promotion landscape, delivered in internal cleaning on climate and other physical workshop with Kavala officials and in risks faced by the 4 cities, including global consultative workshop with key business satellite data on Urban Heat, prepared 4 leaders in the city. detailed city risk snapshots and static plans that could be used in ongoing planning • Produced full economic profiles for each of processes. Supporting data sets collated the 4 cities, which can serve as information and shared to allow for future updates at sources for existing and local investors, city level. Figure 7: Examples of maps highlighting the hazards exposure of the four cities Heraklion is mainly located in high seismic hazard zones; thus, these zones are 2 times more densely populated Within Larisa there are zones that have a very high than areas with moderate seismic hazard levels land surface temperature that go up to 53°C The western parts of the municipal communities of A large rockfall was triggered along reactivated fault Krinides, Zygos, Krioneri, Lydia, and Philippi, as well scarps from Kalamata 1986 earthquake as the eastern coastal area of N. Karvali, belong to the potentially high flood-risk zones of Kavala 29 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE • Lessons learned and recommendations process), detailed recommended to- relating to improved use of geospatial be maps with anticipated time savings data for local evidence-based planning if implemented, high level report with and Disaster Risk management, including recommendations on improving not sharing those findings with national only municipal processes but also stakeholders (Ministry of Interior, Ministry institutional relationships and political of Digitization, etc.) and a reflection on approval processes. the needs in the municipal spatial data infrastructure ecosystem. • Survey of the 4 participant cities, to identify the extent of current e-government Enabling city management systems and tools: solutions being utilized, identification of a set of easy to use and free solutions in • Detailed as-is Business Process maps of different areas of activity, and in-depth the current SUD project planning, approval case studies of practice in Kavala and and implementation process (including Heraklion (considered leading proponents strateg y making and procurement of e-gov solutions). Table 3: Example of potential improvements in processing time based on project to-be recommendations (Larissa) Type of Delay or As is To be Improvement Resource Consumption Administration Delay Delay Total Delay Delay Total Delay Reduction of time required (average or in days (average or in days standard) standard) in days in days 1 Waiting for next 307 307 166 166 141 Committee meeting 2 Evaluation 377 377 210 210 167 Processing effort People Estimated Total Effort People Estimated Total Effort Savings in estimated effort involved effort (person- involved effort (person- (person- days) (person- days) days) days) 1 SUD Plan Evaluation 1 270 298 1 180 180 118 2 Technical Bulletins Evaluation 1 80 101 1 50 50 51 Source: Extracted from Wu, Ramesh, and Howlett (2015). 30 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES 4.3 Implementation – challenges, shortage of data and information in the Greek adjustments and results government system, with a very active academic and research community as well as adherence During implementation several issues emerged to EU policies such as the Infrastructure for which required flexibility and adjustment Spatial Information in the European Community throughout the delivery period, described in (INSPIRE) Directive (common European data more detail below: spaces and open data, and so on). There are however significant fragmentation and siloed Number of local staff approaches, as well as significant bureaucratic hurdles relating to data collection, storage, As implementation got under way, it was clear access, and sharing—not only with external that some additional considerations would bodies (such as the World Bank) but also have to be included to account for severely between and across levels of government. overstretched local municipal officials. While Information is often found to only be available enthusiastic to participate and learn, it was very in scanned or hard copy report formats with clear that staff shortages and limited numbers no supporting or usable data sets. Some data of technical officials, clearly overburdened by sets were found to be of very poor quality, their workload, would require a light touch and either incomplete or outdated, and obtaining sensitive approach. It became apparent that georeferenced data sets posed significant regular in-person convening would be virtually challenges. The team working on DRM spent impossible, also considering the travel times several months collecting, consolidating, and and geographic spread of the participant cities. cleaning up data to map local hazards and A relatively easy adjustment was to deliver risks. This should be a much simpler process, knowledge-sharing events through hybrid and with critical disaster-related information easily virtual modalities, which were generally very available at the local level. It is unrealistic to well attended but did lose some of the potential expect the limited number of overburdened in-person network effect. In addition, this meant local staff to go to these lengths to obtain data some later adjustments to drop a few narrow to inform local planning and decision-making technical focus areas, as officials were clearly as the normal course of business. strained. This includes initial ideas around topics such as private capital mobilization for In the EU context of greater digitalization climate investments, solid waste management, of public facing services and with a growing and urban mobility not taken forward.8 focus on creating sector wide data spaces this area requires urgent attention. While not Data access and quality in context of specifically studied in this work, it is broadly e-government and digitalization acknowledged that even when front end client interfaces may be digitalized, often back- Another signif icant constraint was the end operations are still heavily paper based. availability of local data sources, and access While there are many ambitious plans and new to and sharing of national data sets, to investments in the pipeline for digitalization at support analytical work streams. There is no national level, the constraints relating to limited 8 Adjustments and updates to the initially agreed focus areas and work program were being noted and documented through ongoing communication with the city officials as well as more formally through the project steering committee structures. 31 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE staff numbers at local level will likely again Area 4) were approached as interrelated prove to be a binding constraint. Anecdotally with the aim of more integrated results it was noted in one of the participant cities that and a lower burden of engagement on local the IT department consisted of a single official, officials. As an example, monitoring and required to maintain in excess of 70 different evaluation (M&E) approaches rely on data to software and operating systems. measure progress against indicators and are directly related to spatial data infrastructure Depth of technical work versus ability to influence and how these systems are built, maintained, change/sustainability and operated at the local level. The latter is in turn related to e-government solutions, as The work stream on improving the these are computer-based systems operated implementation process (Thematic Area 4), by municipal staff in each locality. In project and specifically the Business Process Mapping delivery, the coordination and communication exercises, required significant engagement to between different technical teams working on capture the nuances of processes at different these topics were challenging, which reflects levels and across different regions. It was the difficulty to then try to convey integration acknowledged from the outset that the mapping to city officials. M&E work was ultimately only exercises (to prepare as-is and potential to-be applied in practice, with good success, in one process maps) could only be the first step in a participant city (Heraklion). The e-government longer change management process. Within the work was delivered as a survey of participant project timeline, bottlenecks and inefficiencies cities, with sharing of available, free, and open- could be identified and recommendations source tools for city application (some links made, but implementation of any such changes to M&E in using EU indicator and reporting would need a longer time frame. Given the facilities). The most synergies were explored bureaucratic nature of the system (already between spatial data infrastructure and demonstrated in the scoping-level basic disaster risk approaches—with a detailed set process mapping) and the complicated approval of work to produce disaster risk snapshots for environment (also reflected in the mapping each city also yielding significant lessons in of the planning landscape), the level of effort terms of access to and use of spatial data for required to conduct detailed process mapping decision-making. was underestimated at the outset. It required a level of information gathering, engagement, Project governance structures as convening and validation with officials that did not fit platform and multi-level governance in practice well within the staff-constrained environment. While the project outputs are technically A project steering committee was convened on excellent and extremely detailed, there might a quarterly basis, with an early success in that have been an opportunity to sacrifice some of the Ministry of Finance and Economy (with this detail for more engagements around change an oversight role for the SUD ITI program) management processes or supporting a few actively assumed the role of chair. The minor changes in practice to build confidence steering committee served as an opportunity and leave a few tangible results (for example, to convene the National Ministry, the four 30-day reduction in a specific approval step). participant cities, and their respective regional management authorities, as well as any other Several other individual work streams on identified regional and national stakeholders city systems and tools (also under Thematic (including other ministries). The agenda 32 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES featured presentations on progress with TA helped to elevate the topic to senior managers work streams, including the presentation of and political leaders in a much more effective emerging findings and completed outputs by way than working within the DRM sector with different experts, as well as updates from the designated officials only. cities on the final implementation of the 2014– 2020 SUD projects and the 2021–2027 SUD An emerging systemic approach strategy-making process. The meetings were held in virtual or hybrid formats and regularly These emerging lessons, and the observed featured over 60 participants. interplay between elements in the local government system, gave rise to a view The platform demonstrated multi-level within the delivery team that an active shift governance in practice and served as a capacity to systemic capacity building is required, building tool in its own right. Discussions were to avoid the traps of typical short-term TA noted for being surprisingly candid and open (for approaches. A working model was created to the Greek context), cities regularly shared ideas reflect different interactions, pointing to the for improvements with each other. City officials need to focus on people (individual capacity), confirmed that the meetings allowed them to tools and technologies (the usual focus of TA), identify and connect with specific national and process (a much stronger emphasis than officials to which they previously did not have usual in this project). Access to and quality of access. The discussions with national, regional data are a recurring feature in all work streams and local authorities in a single convened space and are featuring strong as a central but missing contributed to a much more efficient and link toward enabling improved decision-making transparent flow of information. Presentations and accelerating implementation processes. by thematic experts also contributed to this This basic model allowed a lens to different open flow of information, breaking out beyond technical teams through which to approach the typical silos of engagement around narrow the city-level engagements and allowed city technical topics. As example, the presentation officials to better understand the overall of DRM findings at the steering committee package of support being implemented. Figure 8: Shifting toward systemic capacity building - an evolving model Source: Project materials and reports. 33 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE This first iteration of a systemic approach the engagement in these two municipalities. strongly reflects the local conditions observed The long period between election results in Greece, starting with people as a first entry and ultimate taking of office (three months) point and placing data very centrally. This resulted in significant uncertainty around the was further informed by an understanding priorities of new administrations, with officials of the national landscape for support to local rather risk averse and waiting for new strategic government, and an attempt to catch the direction. When the new administration took attention of particularly the Ministry of Digital office, officials in these two municipalities were Government and their potential longer-term unable (or unwilling) to secure sufficient high- support for local government capacity building level visibility and new endorsement for the efforts (beyond a singular EU program focus). engagement, even with several EC and World The process dimension in this iteration, at the Bank letters, emails, and other follow-ups simplest level, refers to the Business Process directly to the mayor’s offices. Mapping activity as part of the project. It was also an attempt to highlight that simply The two cities where the project outcomes introducing new tools and technologies without are assessed as the most successful had considering the processes within which those significant political leadership involvement and will be applied would be unlikely to significantly endorsement of the engagement; in both cases, improve delivery timelines. the mayors not only showed direct interest but also actively engaged and contributed. Political environment and change The leadership teams in these two cities also actively shared information around the project The local government elections, which took with the public through the local media and the place in October 2023, were identified during city social media platforms. It was very clear that the initial stages of the project as a potential the officials felt empowered and enthusiastic in risk, and the team identified several actions in their participation and stood in stark contrast to mitigation, which yielded mixed results. These the two cities where this high-level support was included reducing public-facing activities lacking. Another feature of the two successful (particularly around participatory neighborhood cities was the inclusion of a much wider audience planning) in the month before the elections, to of city officials, where project focal points actively avoid the EC and World Bank convened events to invited and involved their colleagues and other potentially be used for electioneering purposes. key partners in the cities. These engagements A strong effort was made to build working were noted for the candid conversations held relationships with senior administrative staff around the lack of coordination, information (that is, not political appointees) and to ensure sharing, and other shared challenges within project work was far enough advanced that the city administration. Even in the two cities no council approvals or endorsements were considered less successful, the M&E and spatial needed during the election period or shortly data work streams noted positive results where thereafter. Two of the four municipalities saw officials within a single administration that had new mayors elected, and there were significant never previously collaborated were convened challenges to continue momentum around and able to connect. 34 4. CASE STUDY: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN FOUR GREEK CITIES 4.4 Key takeaways A respected external organization (in this case the World Bank) was able to access data The participant cities cannot be acknowledged and initiate dialogue across ministries and and thanked enough for their ongoing key stakeholders in a way that did not seem commitment and willingness to participate possible for local officials. This requires in activities under this project. Political additional sensitivity to project delivery, for office bearers, officials, and various key example, creating tools or setting up systems stakeholder representatives actively provided that rely on inputs gathered through such information and participated in workshops, interactions may not be replicable for officials meetings, and learning events. The openness in the future. In this project, the delivery with which information was shared points to team acknowledges that the extensive work a real commitment to improving practice. In around disaster risk snapshots, as valuable many areas, the delivery team found excellent as it is now for city officials and even with practices and innovative solutions being sharing all data sets in usable formats, is utilized by local officials. Through the project, likely not replicable at the individual or local opportunities were created for them to share level. This is in context of a larger systemic their good work, which seemed to help fuel change that require disaster risk information their enthusiasm. A few high-level reflections systems broadly to transition from static can be drawn from this engagement: reports and data fragments to a dynamic curated resource at national, regional and (a) The need to be sensitive to and aware local level. of actions may act as substitution for government capacity versus building long- (b) Capturing intangible results and the lasting (sustainable) capacity. attribution of change are difficult in capacity building initiatives. Capacity substitution occurs when external entities (such as international organizations, The success of the steering committee NGOs, or private companies) perform functions reflected in the levels of attendance and quality that should ideally be carried out by local of discussions, and making of connections government officials. This approach can be cannot be overstated in this project, even if it quicker and sometimes necessary in emergency will not continue beyond the project closing. situations, but it carries significant risks such as It delivered a demonstration effect in terms the creation of dependency or over-reliance on of the value of true multi-level governance external providers. External entities may also lack approaches. In terms of project design, it the nuanced understanding of local contexts, was conceived as necessary for coordination cultures, and needs, leading to solutions that are purposes but was not listed as an expected not well-suited to the local environment. In this concrete output, deliverable, or results project, TA was offered due to the immediate indicator. Systemic change also takes time to and pressing needs around the SUD ITI program materialize and is not always clearly visible for the 2021 – 2027 programming period, and when improvements happen slowly. There is while the delivery team was acutely aware of no easy solution to this challenge of attribution, the need to build long term capacity to remain it is what academic researchers, donors, and after completion of the project, some areas of development organizations have been grappling potential substitution is noted upon this review. with for a very long time. 35 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE (c) A framework to keep delivery focused on case ranging from process simplification elements in the systems (people, tools, data, recommendations to e-government tools, and so on – see figure 7), and not just the adopting new participatory approaches, or agreed outputs, is useful. improved access to data sets), they all require individuals within the government system While the technical work in this project was to adopt and use them. Recipients must be clearly structured from the outset (two work centered in any capacity-building effort, and streams and four thematic areas of work), understanding the context within which they the team made a concerted effort to connect function is crucial to success.9 In this project, the dots and interpret the activities in the self-reinforcing constraints in the government context of the local government system as delivery system were very evident and resulted project implementation progressed. This in a level of churn that even the best capacity and not only was helpful in ensuring different most motivated individuals cannot overcome. technical teams could see the bigger picture Too few people, working in overly bureaucratic (that is, system capacity) but also served systems, are kept busy with inefficient as a good communication tool to frame activities, tying up the limited time and capacity the approach and rationalize adjustments that are available. Simplification efforts and made during implementation. Not pursuing digitization are widely touted as solutions to additional technical themes and topics was these challenges, but without some form of clearly motivated based on the available adequately resourced change management human resources capacity, and in some cases, process, the implementation of these solutions new work streams would present more data is left to the already overburdened officials. challenges that would require project resources Faced with the public and local communities not initially anticipated. Here, the flexibility to demanding service delivery or administrative adapt the capacity-building program as new decisions to be expedited, officials are likely information around the system emerged was to continue business as usual rather than also crucial. dedicate time to trying to change systems and processes. It is even more pronounced in (d) The capacity of the system starts with the mayor centric systems (such as Greece) where people, but there are self-reinforcing loops managing change relies on the role, capabilities, in the culture and system of government to personality of mayor and his immediate team. overcome. This seems very similar to ‘decision-making traps’ (see page 14 - systemic decision-making Whatever outputs are ultimately produced oriented toward the short term) and could well through a capacity-building process (in this be called ‘local implementation traps’. 9 For an example of a study reviewing failures in north-south climate knowledge exchanges due to the failure to center recipients, see Nago and Krott (2022). 36 5. A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE EU 5. A Framework for Systemic Capacity Building at the Local Level in the EU Building on the comprehensive literature as some universal issues and themes in capacity review and detailed case study presented in the building might have broader application. preceding chapters, this chapter introduces a framework designed to enhance systemic The framework could be used to ensure that capacity at the local government level. By a systemic lens is applied when designing synthesizing theoretical insights and practical capacity-building programs for the local findings, we aim to address the complex and government, along five dimensions: people with self-reinforcing constraints that impede skills, tools and technology, business processes, effective service delivery and governance. authorizing environment, and local and public This framework not only seeks to streamline sector culture. This can broadly be done in two processes and integrate digital tools but also ways: ensure awareness and at least contextual emphasizes the importance of understanding consideration when designing activities targeting and adapting to the unique contexts in which specific points or dimensions in the system local government officials operate. The (for example, assistance to develop tools and framework is most directly applicable within technology) or ensure more ambitiously designed the EU context but given the emerging climate capacity-building programs that actively address change capacity needs at the local level as well all the five dimensions of the framework. 37 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Figure 9: A framework for systemic local government capacity building START use HERE People with Tools & Skills Technology to enables improve Mayor & Red Tape & Council Authorizing Business Bureaucracy Administrative Environment Processes EU Rules & Leadership Procedures embedded in Legislation & Regulations Each of the five dimensions of the framework skills are placed in the primary position is discussed in more detail below, and and are foundational in systemic capacity annexure B offers a set of guiding questions building. These are critical determinants of for each dimension which can be considered in service delivery capability, with adequate capacity-building design processes. It should staffing ensuring that there are enough be emphasized that it may not be practically hands to manage the workload and the feasible to include activities in a capacity- necessary expertise to deliver high-quality building program to address each of the services. Investing in staff development and systemic dimensions. The application of the maintaining a diverse range of skills within framework offers an opportunity, at a minimum, the workforce are essential strategies for to be aware from the outset of the risks and local governments to meet the needs of their possible constraints to achieving sustainable communities effectively. It is acknowledged improved local capacity. The questions are that capacity-building programs often do not framed broadly for application across the local have the ability to influence the number of staff government as a whole or could be applied to employed. It is however important to consider a narrow technical focus area (for example, the staffing situation in a local government spatial planning, public transport, solid waste to design a capacity-building program management, and social services). most likely to deliver results. This includes considering whether the technical training 5.1 People with skills offered requires a certain minimum level of competency or whether a department’s work In keeping with the lessons from the Greece will be significantly disrupted or delayed due case study, the number of staff and their to many staff participating in capacity building 38 5. A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE EU at the same time. Different approaches might requirements, and multiple approval stages include embedding a resource with a team to inherent in government operations. Each conduct on-the-job training or sequencing step in the process, intended to ensure several opportunities to participate in the thoroughness and accountability, can add same training to allow more staff members to complexity and delay. As a result, what begins attend at different times. as a well-intentioned regulation can become 5.2 Tools and technology a cumbersome and time-consuming burden. The focus is often on how such bureaucratic In the other theoretical frameworks processes affects residents or businesses, but discussed (see for example ), tools and skills these can be a significant drain on internal are often identified as the simplest form of limited local government capacity. capacity building. Given the strong focus on digitization in the EU context, capacity Ultimately staff applies tools and technology building and knowledge sharing are often in set processes, and with the pressure of technology focused, and this is grouped here digitization comes the idea that technology or with tools. This dimension also includes new automation can solve all challenges. Business or improved methodologies and approaches. processes that are cumbersome and inefficient It is important to identify and select the are ill suited to automation, and it is important appropriate solutions that align with the to consider simplification and streamlining specific local government’s size, budget, and first. This would often require work up and specific challenges. Customization ensures that down hierarchies, at times even across different the technology addresses the actual pain points institutions, for example, upward with national and enhances the local government’s capacity regulators to ensure compliance. Internal in a meaningful way. For instance, a small rural change management is also a vital part of any municipality may benefit more from mobile- streamlining process. Systems infrastructure, based solutions that can be accessed in areas including software systems, approval processes, with limited internet connectivity, whereas a and even staff structures, are often built around larger urban center might require sophisticated existing processes, and any capacity building data analytics platforms to manage complex focused on process improvement will have to urban issues. Without enough staff with the also consider how entrenched some of these appropriate skills, these tools and technologies, elements are. no matter how relevant or customized, will not be applied in practice. It should now become 5.4 Authorizing environment evident how the dimensions of the framework are interrelated (refer to the arrows in figure 8). The authorizing environment for local government officials encompasses formal 5.3 Business processes and informal structures and stakeholders that grant them the authority and legitimacy to Government regulations are designed to perform their duties. This could also include ensure compliance with laws, protect public processes and regulations, which define the interests, and maintain order, but the business scope of their powers and responsibilities, but processes involved in implementing these this framework for local government is deemed regulations can often transform them into sufficiently important to be considered as a red tape. This transformation occurs due to the separate dimension. Importantly, authorizing layers of bureaucracy, extensive documentation at the local government level very strongly 39 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE involves the political leadership, including creates opportunities for collaboration and mayors, city councils, and other elected officials, partnership to ensure joint government-wide who provide direction, support, and oversight. delivery. Capacity-building programs can help Community groups, businesses, and residents facilitate discussions or create platforms for also play a significant role by influencing engagement, as in the Greece case through the priorities and holding officials accountable steering committee and producing technical through public opinion and participation in outputs. Consideration should be given local governance processes. to actions that will sustain those working relationships beyond the duration of only a The authorizing environment is dynamic and single capacity-building effort. Even strongly requires local government officials to navigate technical-focused capacity building (skills, complex interactions and balance competing tools, and technology) could be strengthened interests to effectively implement policies by considering this intergovernmental and deliver public services. It is through this dimension and actively building either environment that they gain the necessary skills or platforms for collaboration and mandate to act, ensuring their actions are aligned communication. Soft skills such as strategic with legal requirements, political directives, negotiation or effective communication could and community expectations. Capacity building be very valuable to local government officials will only be successful if officials are able to in their day-to-day activities. navigate their authorizing environment to apply new skills, tools, or processes in practice. It 5.5 Local and public sector culture was very clear in the Greece case that officials who felt that they did not have the necessary The two preceding dimensions (business support from their authorizing environment processes and authorizing environment) (and specifically political leadership) were very are heavily influenced by the prevailing and hesitant to actively participate or dedicate dominant culture broadly in the public sector time to the project. In cases where political in a country, but even more specifically in a leadership demonstrated their support and region or locality. Regulations and procedures enthusiasm for the project, officials were noted (both in design and in practice implementation) to be more proactive and felt empowered to are deeply rooted in specific historical, political, embark on public-facing engagements, in so and social dynamics. Greece has a long history doing actually strengthening the authorizing of bureaucratic complexity and clientelism, environment through building public support. which has often resulted in a regulatory framework characterized by excessive red Intergovernmental relationships with tape and inefficiency. Cultural emphasis on other agencies can affect the resources and personal relationships and informal networks regulatory constraints and are a final part of can sometimes undermine formal regulatory the authorizing environment within which processes, leading to inconsistencies and local officials operate. The local government enforcement issues. Public trust in government is often reliant on funds flowing as grants, institutions has also been historically low subsidies, or other investment programs from following several economic crises, complicating national government, and as such, officials efforts to build public support to streamline and must have a deep understanding of criteria, modernize the regulatory framework. In another policies, and procedures to access funds and EU context example, many eastern European compliance in utilizing those funds. This also systems involve a complex interplay between old bureaucratic and centrally planned practices 40 5. A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL IN THE EU with new democratic principles. A historic city demonstrated a unique culture and history emphasis on stability and control, combined with which influences approaches and priorities. the need for modernization and transparency in As discussed in the case study, the attitude of the context of EU membership and regulations, leaders (political and administrative) toward creates a unique regulatory landscape. the capacity-building effort had a significant impact on successful implementation. These These unique cultural contexts would require attitudes are also influenced by the local and a more nuanced approach even if the same public sector culture. basic capacity-building effort is undertaken in different countries, and there may even A holistic approach to capacity building is be regional differences to consider within a of course not a new concept, and there are specific country. In the Greece example, while many examples of programs that consider an overarching public sector culture was notably multiple dimensions and the explicit context present in all participant cities, some were clearly in which the new capacity has to be applied. more open to innovation and challenging the One such example is described in box 8, in status quo. This could be attributed to individual this case focusing on Municipal Spatial Data appetites for innovation and risk taking, but each Infrastructure (MSDI). Box 9: Example of a holistic approach to capacity building - City Planning Labs and MSDI City Planning Labs (CPL) is a TA program of the World Bank, which aims to enhance the technical and institutional capacity of municipal governments to produce, share, and utilize geospatial data for evidence-led urban planning. As one of the flagship engagements, CPL has undertaken an ecosystem approach to develop and operationalize a robust MSDI in partner cities. Both ‘systemic’ and ‘ecosystem’ approaches focus on analyzing and addressing complex interactions within an organization. There may be a theoretical distinction that systemic approaches tend to be somewhat more internally focused on how dimensions influence each other and feedback mechanisms between those, while ecosystems approaches tend to focus more strongly on components of the ecosystem and how these interact with a wider network of stakeholders and partners. The graphic below depicts the components of the MSDI approach. Source: https://collaboration.worldbank.org/content/sites/collaboration-for-development/en/groups/city-planning-labs.html. 41 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE 6. Conclusions The local government’s crucial role in basic policy, financial, and organizational aspects, service delivery through managing utilities, and is dynamic, evolving over time through transportation, infrastructure, waste disposal, capacity building. Capacity, capability, and and land-use planning will continue to become performance, and how these are related need increasingly important in any efforts in the to be understood—that is, a local government realm of climate change. Successful capacity can have the necessary capacity (people, building in climate action, such as energy- funds, and so on), but there may be specific efficiency programs, highlights the importance environmental constraints that limit the of national institutions owning the process, and capability to deploy or utilize this capacity, literature emphasizes moving beyond technical ultimately affecting performance. With multiple know-how to a ‘learning by doing’ approach. sectoral units and policies converging at the Unlike temporary TA or digitization efforts, local level, the resultant policy and planning a systemic approach to capacity building, intricacy puts further strain on already limited supported by adequate budgets, is essential local resources. Reducing policy and planning for achieving long-term improvements and complexity at the local level is imperative for resilience in local governance. In administrative bolstering capacity development. By removing capacity, the optimal or ideal systems or end the obfuscation caused by convoluted systems, states do not exist, but systems need to be local governments can better deploy their continuously upgraded, and the process of resources, enhancing their capability to deliver administrative capacity development should be public services effectively. viewed as dynamic and continuous (El-Taliawi and Van Der Wal 2019). Shifting from a focus on absorptive capacity to a more holistic view of local government Local government capacity is multidimensional, capacity in the EU is essential for fostering involving administrative, human resources, sustainable development. While absorptive 42 6. CONCLUSIONS capacity emphasizes the ability to utilize in typical local government-focused TA or external funds and resources, a holistic approach peer-learning engagements. One of the key considers the broader spectrum of capabilities, approaches in the World Bank has been including strategic planning, governance, and performance-based grants targeting the local community engagement. This comprehensive government (Lee et al. 2022), which usually perspective ensures that local governments are includes a capacity-building component. An not only efficient in resource utilization but also application of a systemic lens to more or less resilient, innovative, and capable of addressing successful capacity-building efforts could complex socioeconomic challenges. By adopting offer interesting insights and even potential a holistic view, the EU can better support local lessons for future program design. governments in building robust institutions that are adaptable and responsive to the evolving There are also opportunities to explore needs of their communities. application of the framework in different contexts such as Middle-Income Countries Some further research and application (MICs), Low-Income Countries (LICs), and opportunities of the framework have been Fragility, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) affected identified, as follows: regions and countries. In Middle-Income Countries, local governments often have a a. Further development, refinement, and relatively higher level of existing infrastructure testing of the systemic framework, and institutional capacity and efforts can focus ideally in practice with local government on enhancing efficiency, transparency, and officials as part of the process. Following innovation. As seen in the Greece case in a high- the rationale of Potter and Brough’s Health income developed economy, local governments Policy pyramid approach (), further work in MICs may similarly benefit from advanced could be done to refine or disaggregate training programs that incorporate digital the five dimensions into more granular governance, data analytics, and performance constituent pieces and consider specific management systems. In contrast, Low-Income inputs necessary (capacity-building Countries face more fundamental challenges requirements) for the system to move such as limited financial resources, inadequate toward optimal functioning. As an example, infrastructure, and significant skills shortages. people and skills, as one dimension, clearly Capacity building in LICs often needs to start consists of people (the number of people, with the basics: sometimes even improving positions, vacancies, and so on summarized literacy and education levels among local as sufficient staff) and a skills dimension government staff, establishing foundational (the qualifications of officials in specific administrative systems, and ensuring basic positions summarized as capable staff). service delivery. Efforts may include training programs focused on essential skills such b. A review of how (and if) tried and tested as budgeting, project management, and instruments and tools to support improved community engagement. It may further include performance of the local government, in embedding specialist external human resources both the World Bank and the EC, fit with within local governments in order to support or can be adjusted to consider a systemic these foundational processes. The focus here is capacity-building approach. In the case of often on creating a stable and functional local the EC, this might include a consideration of government that can progressively take on the presence or absence of systemic elements more complex tasks. 43 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE FCV contexts present unique and severe in each context. challenges for capacity building. Local governments in these areas often operate in In conclusion, embracing a systemic capacity- environments of instability, insecurity, and building framework holds promise for weak rule of law. Capacity building efforts significantly enhancing the performance and must therefore be highly adaptive and sensitive resilience of local governments. Integrating to the local context. Priorities may include tried and tested instruments from institutions establishing basic security and trust between such as the World Bank and the EC and examining the government and the community, rebuilding these through a systemic lens can uncover damaged infrastructure, and restoring essential valuable insights and lessons that inform future services. Training programs might focus on capacity-building endeavors. Moreover, the conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and trauma- iterative process of refining and testing the informed governance. Additionally, there is framework for systemic capacity building in often a need for rapid response mechanisms real-world scenarios with local officials will not and flexible funding arrangements to address only validate its practical applicability but also the fluid and unpredictable nature of FCV pave the way for more targeted and effective contexts. International support is crucial, interventions. It is imperative to recognize but it must be carefully coordinated to avoid that capacity building is not an end in itself exacerbating existing tensions. Therefore, while but a means to achieve broader development the overarching goal of capacity building for goals. Consequently, aligning capacity-building local governments is to enhance their ability priorities with overarching development to effectively serve their communities, the aspirations will ensure that local governments strategies and priorities must be tailored to the are not only equipped but also empowered to specific challenges and opportunities present drive sustainable progress in their communities. 44 ANNEXURE A Annexure A: Greece Project - Details on Support Provided in Each Thematic Area and List of Knowledge Materials Produced Heraklion Kalamata Larissa Thematic area of support Kavala Capacity-building activities and outputs Thematic Area 1: Participatory and inclusive urban planning and regeneration 1a. Integrated neighborhood (precinct) - Several missions by technical team per municipality for site visit and engagement level planning and implementation with key stakeholders Subtopics applicable per city: - Waterfront redevelopment slide deck and posters for use - June 2023 - Planned and executed full 2-day participatory Urban Labs in 3 municipalities: Kavala, - Participatory neighborhood planning Kalamata, and Heraklion (November 2023–January 2024) - Redevelopment of derelict buildings - Meeting with EU coastal erosion expert and Messinian gulf area mayors to discuss - Urban heat impacts and green spaces integrated development of the wider seafront (November 2023) (included in 3d - risk snapshots) - Workshop on coastal erosion with EU expert (October 2023) and peer-to-peer session - Waterfront redevelopment between Kavala, Kalamata, and Heraklion Coastal erosion - New sub-topic as Multiple workshops hosted on the topic of derelict buildings: requested by municipalities during • November 7, 2023 - first hybrid event with Ministry of Culture present implementation • January 19, 2024 - Kavala-specific follow-up discussion meeting on utilization of inactive tobacco warehouses in the city of Kavala for social and housing policy applications • March 7, 2024 - Public assets and urban regeneration webinar • March 27 - Social housing as alternative use option (with Thessaloniki case) - Final peer-to-peer learning event on neighborhood planning (May 2024) - Case study paper 1: Waterfront redevelopment and lessons from Kalamata (May 2024) - Case Study paper 2: Land readjustment in Kalamata (May 2024) Proposed study tour to a European city The EC’s system and structure for supporting knowledge exchanges changed during with similar challenges the implementation period of the project with the launch of EUI. The World Bank team, in close collaboration with the Ministry of Development and DG REGIO, prepared a proposal for a regional learning event in Croatia, which would include the Greek city participants as well as potential city participants from other countries. While all parties expressed great interest in arranging such an event, it will likely only be delivered after closure of this project through EUI. Thematic Area 2: Private sector finance mobilization and local business engagement 2a. Economic development profiles - World Bank global and local experts with direct engagement with cities on specific topics (approached as single package of activity) 2b. Business retention and expansion - Economic and firm-level data collection from all participating municipalities, to initiatives (including specifically inform economic profiles tourism industry engagement) - Mission to Larissa to engage and dialogue with private businesses to understand investment motivation for well-performing local businesses 2c. Investment attraction and private - Slide deck: Best practice in local economic development and investment promotion sector partnerships in property - Workshop in Larissa on foreign direct investment promotion redevelopment - Economic profile per city (4 total), including recommendations for investment promotion focus areas per municipality Thematic Area 3: Climate smart service delivery 3a. Solid waste management, Agreed to drop this focus area; could be considered for study tour or phase 2 support. recycling, and waste reduction (best practices) 3b. Alternative and e-mobility Kavala received support on sustainable urban mobility during the Urban Lab and opportunities (best practices) neighborhood planning activities as part of Thematic Area 1. 45 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Heraklion Kalamata Larissa Kavala Thematic area of support Capacity-building activities and outputs Thematic Area 3: Climate smart service delivery 3c. Innovative financing options for Agreed to drop this focus area; could be considered for study tour or phase 2 support. green infrastructure (best practices) 3d. DRM and resilient infrastructure Experts: World Bank global and local teams (profile per municipality) - Full risk snapshot report per municipality, with a set of static maps for use in planning processes - Ongoing review and validation per municipality, including individual sessions to share findings - Data repository with all collected and clean data per city available for use in geographic information systems (GISs) • Overall report with findings on DRM and risk-related data at the municipality level. This report also linked to the spatial data infrastructure task as risk and DRM data are being used as testing ground for this broader topic. Thematic Area 4: Enabling city management systems and tools 4a. Optimization of project - Missions in every participating municipality for data collection implementation processes - As-is and to-be maps with recommendation reports per city - Visit to Kalamata with workshop and virtual national workshops to present and discuss findings - Discussion session with other key stakeholders at national peer-learning event 4b. Evidence-based decision-making, - Desk research for best practices and recommendations on key performance data, and M&E indicators (KPIs) and monitoring methods, including using the EU Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities(RFSC) - Work with Heraklion to populate RFSC with recommendations for indicator adjustments in the context of ITI SUD) - Peer-to-peer learning event between municipalities (Heraklion and Kavala) - Full report on M&E with case studies relevant to the needs of the four participating municipalities 4c. E-governance, open data, digital E-government platforms - citizen participation tools Research team, University of Aegean (including spatial data infrastructure - Questionnaire for identifying municipality’s needs and prioritizing focus) proposed solutions - Webinar on e-government solutions and survey approach for this project. - Report with findings from survey and recommendations - Two e-government case studies - Heraklion and Kavala Spatial Data Infrastructure - One-to-one online meetings with the four participating municipalities for tailoring TA to each city - Provided inputs as requested for each participating municipality - Recommendations for municipality-level actions to improved spatial data governance and use (included in report for 3d - disaster risk) 4d. SUD strategy preparation support As needed and requested as required - Completed for Heraklion: Support in delivering SUD public engagement 46 ANNEXURE A List of knowledge materials and deliverables produced Thematic area Sub-topic Documents or video material Participatory Neighborhood Coastal erosion Presentation: Introduction to coastal erosion Planning Presentation: Coastal erosion dynamics Kalamata Presentation: Coastal monitoring Kavala Peer-learning webinar recordings of the above Derelict buildings and Workshop report: “Regeneration of abandoned tobacco warehouses in the city of Kavala social housing for social policy and housing purposes” Kavala, January 19, 2024 (with annexures) Report: Social and affordable housing in the Greek context Waterfront redevelopment Report: Kalamata’s waterfront Redevelopment - Lessons from other cities Presentation: Case studies for redevelopment Posters: Case studies for redevelopment Note: Activity summary (3 pages) Note: Integrated coastal management of the Messinian Gulf (to Mayor of Kalamata) Participatory planning Final report and neighborhood design proposals, Heraklion Final report and neighborhood design proposals, Kalamata waterfront Final report and design proposals, Periagli, Kavala Guidebook for participatory urban planning approaches in Greece (in English and Greek) Slides: Peer-learning workshop on participatory approaches Land readjustment policies: A case study of Kalamata’s post-earthquake urban design Local economic development City economic profile • Final report Heraklion and investment promotion • Final report Kalamata • Final report Kavala • Final report Larissa Local economic development Slides: Tools and approaches to local economic development Foreign direct investment Slides: Foreign direct investment promotion approaches for small and medium towns Climate-smart service City risk snapshots • Consolidated report risk snapshots for all four cities (including DRM) • Heraklion City risk snapshot (English and Greek) • Larissa City risk snapshot (English and Greek) • Kalamata City risk snapshot (English and Greek) • Kavala City risk snapshot (English and Greek) Enabling city systems Spatial data infrastructure • City Planning Labs: Municipal Spatial Data Infrastructure Manual (World Bank) and tools • Slides: Spatial data infrastructure for DRM in Greece • Slides: Spatial data and SUD Business process mapping • As-is report mapping current process • To-be report proposing streamlined processes • Final report • Slides used during city engagements E-government solutions • Report: E-government actions and solutions • Case study: E-gov Heraklion • Case study: E-gov Kavala • Webinar recording M&E • Slides: M&E findings & recommendations (Heraklion) • Report: Recommendations for an improved ITI SUD M&E system (Heraklion case) • RFSC - How to get started (Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities) Final event Recording of sessions • Day 1 - Session 1: Opening remarks • Day 1 - Session 2: Derelict buildings and social housing • Day 1 - Session 3: Mayoral panel - capacity building at the local level • Day 1 - Session 4: Kalamata waterfront redevelopment and participatory planning • Day 2 - Session 6: Recap of Day 1 • Day 2 - Session 7: Climate adaptation at the local level • Day 2 - Session 8: M&E Heraklion and spatial data infrastructure for local government • Kavala participatory neighborhood planning 47 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Annexure B: Guiding Questions for Applying the Framework during Capacity-Building Design The table below presents some guiding Middle-Income Countries (MICs), Low- questions for consideration during the Income Countries (LICs), and Fragility, design of the local government capacity- Conf lict, and Violence (FCV) affected building programs. This is not an exhaustive regions requires tailored strategies. In list and is meant to stimulate discussion and MICs, where local governments often have allow for adjustments to potentially increase better infrastructure and institutional the likelihood of sustainability in the improved capacity, efforts can focus on enhancing capacity within a specific context. Importantly, efficiency, transparency, and innovation this does not mean that every capacity- throug h advanced training programs building program should include actions in in digital governance and performance each dimension, as this is simply not practically management. Conversely, LICs face more feasible. It does however offer an opportunity fundamental challenges like limited financial to make subtle adjustments or at least be aware resources and inadequate infrastructure, from the outset of the possible constraints necessitating basic capacity building efforts to achieving improved local capacity. The such as improving literacy, establishing questions are framed broadly for application administrative systems, and ensuring basic across the local government as a whole or could service delivery. In FCV contexts, where be applied to a narrow technical focus area (for instability and weak rule of law prevail, example, spatial planning, public transport, capacity building must be adaptive and solid waste management, and social services). sensi tive, priori tizing securi ty, trust- building, infrastructure rebuilding, and The application of capacity building essential services restoration, with a focus frameworks in different contexts such as on conflict resolution and peacebuilding. 48 ANNEXURE B List of knowledge materials and deliverables produced Dimensions of Consider these questions and use insights to design the most appropriate capacity-building systemic capacity approach/entry point or identify risks and gaps with appropriate mitigation activities built into the approach 1. People with skills Staff • What is the current staffing situation, that is, adequate staff to deliver functions or large numbers of vacancies? • How many staff members from the municipality or from specific departments will be participating? • What time commitment is required from these staff members to participate? • How will their participation influence the municipality’s service delivery during the period of participation? Are there other staff members available to handle workflow during this time? Skills • Is a specific level of technical competence required from participants? If so, what is this level of competence and how can/will it be assessed before the start of capacity building? • If acute skills shortages exist (especially in LIC contexts) consideration might be given to embedding specialist resources within institutions • Is the technical competence required realistic in context of the local education system, skills available in the market and government remuneration (specifically in LIC context) 2. Tools and Tools (and methodologies) technology • Will the capacity-building program adapt tools to the local context or will participants be trained and guided to do their own adaptation? • What are the future maintenance requirements of tools, that is, what level of effort would be required to ensure updating or continuous use? • Are the methodologies completely new in the country context, or only improvement of current practice (the former will require a certain scale/number of users to allow for broad adoption, easier to achieve if new approach as a result of regulatory reforms or to meet new compliance requirements)? Technology • In country context (especially LICs) how realistic is a technology solution vs. a focus on building a basic streamlined processes for future digitalization? • What is the minimum required hardware infrastructure to successfully use tools or systems (and does the local government have this in place or will further investment be required)? • Is end user training required to ensure optimal use (understand technical maintenance versus end user requirements)? 3. Business processes • Is the business process within which the capacity (tools, tech, skills, and so on) will be applied well understood? Are there multiple departments involved in the business process and how will they be affected? • How will the new tools, tech, or skills influence the specific business process (for example, more participatory approaches would change timelines for project design and preparation, and improved budgeting approaches across a local government could require more time to gather inputs from different departments)? Clearly articulate the process timeline versus quality improvement trade-offs, if any. 4. Authorizing • Is there active political-level support for the capacity-building effort and any institutional changes or environment improvements that would be required to yield systemic results (consider Mayor’s position versus council, electoral cycles, and public opinion)? • Linked to business process, if other departments are involved or affected, would this require significant additional effort on the part of officials to translate into the operating environment (for example, different heads of department or different Deputy Mayor outside of official’s direct line of reporting)? • Consider intergovernmental relations - link to tools above. Is the new capacity required to meet new regulations, as incentive or compliance instrument to access resources, and so on? What is the relative strength of the involved national department (politically or through controlling relevant resources available to the local government)? 49 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE List of knowledge materials and deliverables produced Dimensions of Consider these questions and use insights to design the most appropriate capacity-building systemic capacity approach/entry point or identify risks and gaps with appropriate mitigation activities built into the approach 5. Local and public • Can a prevailing public sector culture be identified and described? This could be at the broad national level (for sector culture example, strong central government, top-down approaches versus bottom-up empowering, and so on) or for a specific ministry or department (strong political leader with full oversight and involvement, strong or weak technical skills, and so on). • Can a prevailing local culture be identified and described? This could include community attitudes toward regulations, process, and so on or local authority attitude toward service delivery (for example, bureaucratic, dynamic, innovative or compliance focused, or risk averse or risk taking). • Special additional considerations around trust, safety, etc. in FCV contexts • Consider how the prevailing culture will influence the application (or not) of improved capacity. 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Allred, Shorna B., Allison M. Chatrchyan, and Giorgi Tsintsadze. 2022. “Local Municipal Capacity for Climate Change Action in New York State: Exploring the Urban–Rural Divide.” Review of Policy Research 39 (5): 570–601. Addison, Helen J. 2009. “Is Administrative Capacity a Useful Concept? Review of the Application, Meaning and Observation of Administrative Capacity in Political Science Literature.” LSE Research Paper 1–21. Alexandru, Dana Georgeta, and Beata Guziejewska. 2020. “Administrative Capacity as a Constraint to Fiscal Decentralization. The Case of Romania and Poland.” Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe 23 (1): 127–143. Alm, Jens, Alexander Paulsson, and Robert Jonsson. 2021. “Capacity in Municipalities: Infrastructures, Maintenance Debts and Ways of Overcoming a Run-to-Failure Mentality.” Local Economy 36 (2): 81–97. Analoui, Farhad, and Joseph K Danquah. 2017. “Capacity Development: The World Bank and UNDP Perceptive.” In: Critical Capacity Development. p 43–59.Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47416-8_4 Andrews, Rhys, and George A. Boyne. 2010. “Capacity, Leadership, and Organizational Performance: Testing the Black Box Model of Public Management.” Public Administration Review 70 (3): 443–454. Andrews, Rhys, Malcolm J. Beynon, and Aoife M. McDermott. 2016. “Organizational Capability in the Public Sector: A Configurational Approach.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26 (2): 239–258. Androniceanu, Armenia, and Irina Georgescu. 2023. “Public Administration Digitalization and Government Effectiveness in the EU Countries.” Central European Public Administration Review (CEPAR) 21 (1): 7-30. Asensio, Juan Casado, Dominique Blaquier, and Jens Sedemund. 2022. “Strengthening Capacity for Climate Action in Developing Countries: Overview and Recommendations.” Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 105. OECD, Paris. Barbera, Carmela, Bernard Dom, Céline du Boys, Sanja Korac, Iris Saliterer, and Ileana Steccolini. 2024. “Insights from Local Government Managers: Navigating Crises through Organizational Capacities and Perceptions.” Public Administration Review 1–20. https:/ /doi.org/10.1111/ puar.13859 Baser, Heather, and Peter Morgan. 2008. Capacity, Change and Performance: Study Report. European Center for Development and Policy Management. 51 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE Boeckhout, S., L. Boot, M. Hollanders, K. J. Reinke, J. M. de Vet, A. M. F. Figeuiredo, and M. J. P. del Riquelme. 2002. Key Indicators for Candidate Countries to Effectively Manage the Structural Funds: Final Report. Rotterdam: Netherlands Economics Institute. Boex, Jamie, Tim Williamson, and Serdar Yilmaz. 2022. Fiscal Decentralization, Local Public Sector Finance, and Intergovernmental Fiscal. Washington, DC: World Bank. Bryan, T. K., and K. R. Isett. 2013. “Capacity for Change: Dynamic Capabilities in Public Organizations.” Academy of Management Proceedings (1): 16419. Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Laura Bloomberg. 2014. “Public Value Governance: Moving beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management.” Public Administration Review 74 (4): 445–456. Carley, Sanya, Sean Nicholson-Crotty, and Eric Fisher. 2014. “Capacity, Guidance, and the Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Public Administration Review 75 (1): 113–125. Choi, NakHyeok. 2021. “Analyzing Local Government Capacity and Performance: Implications for Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 13 (7): 3862. Christensen, R. K., and B. Gazley. 2008. “Capacity for Public Administration: Analysis of Meaning and Measurement.” Public Administration and Development 28 (4). https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ pad.500. Cid, A., and A. M. Lerner. 2023. “Local Governments as Key Agents in Climate Change Adaptation: Challenges and Opportunities for Institutional Capacity-Building in Mexico.” Climate Policy 23 (5): 649–661. Cunico, Giovanni, Eirini Aivazidou, and Edoardo Mollona. 2022. “Decision‐Making Traps behind Low Regional Absorption of Cohesion Policy funds.” European Policy Analysis 8 (4): 439–466. da Silva, Pedro Ivo Ferraz. 2022. “Capacity Building as the Cornerstone of the Climate Change Regime: Evolution of the Agenda through a Policy-Practitioner View from Brazil.” Climate Policy 22 (5): 687–694. Dimitrova, A. 2002. “Enlargement, Institution-Building and EU Administrative Capacity requirement.” West European Politics 25 (4): 171–190. Distor, Charmaine B., and Odkhuu Khaltar. 2022. “What Motivates Local Governments to Be Efficient? Evidence from Philippine Cities.” Sustainability 14 (15): 9426. Donahue, Amy Kneedler, Sally Coleman Selden, and Patricia W. Ingraham. 2000. “Measuring Government Management Capacity: A Comparative Analysis of City Human Resources Management Systems.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (2): 381–412. Eade, Debora. 1997. Capacity-Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development. Oxfam. El-Taliawi, O. G., and Z. Van Der Wal. 2019. “Developing Administrative Capacity: An Agenda for Research and Practice.” Policy Design and Practice 2 (3): 243–257. European Centre for Development Policy Management. 2008. Capacity, Change and Performance. Maastricht, The Netherlands: ECDPM. European Commission. 2024. “The future or European Competitiveness”. Brussels, Belgium. 52 BIBLIOGRAPHY European Commission. 2020. “Roadmaps for Administrative Capacity Building - Practical Toolkit.” European Committee of Regions. 2018. “Administrative Capacity of Local and Regional Authorities: Opportunities and Challenges for Structural Reforms and a More Effective European Economic Governance.” European Parliamant. 2019. Integrated Territorial Investments as an Effective Tool of the Cohesion Policy. Brussels: Directorate General for Internal Policies. European Parliament. 2017. Understanding Capacity Building / Capacity Development. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament. European Policies Research Center. 2020. The Use of Technical Assistance for Administrative Capacity Buliding in the 2014–2020 Period. Brussels: European Commission, DG Regio. Fiszbein, A., ed. 2005. Citizens, Politicians, and Providers: The Latin American Experience with Service Delivery Reform. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Fukuyama, Francis. 2013. “What Is Governance?” Governance 26 (3): 347–368. Gasco-Hernandez, Mila, Greta Nasi, Maria Cucciniello, and Alexander M. Hiedemann. 2022. “The Role of Organizational Capacity to Foster Digital Transformation in Local Governments: The Case of Three European Smart Cities.” Urban Governance 2 (2): 236. Horvat, Andrej. 2005. “Why Does Nobody Care about the Absorption? Some Aspects Regarding Administrative Absorption Capacity for the EU Structural Funds in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia before Accession.” WIFO Working Papers, No. 258. Jeong, Moon-Gi. 2007. “Local Political Structure, Administrative Capacity, and Revenue Policy Choice.” State and Local Government Review 39 (2): 84–95. Klinsky, Sonja, and Ambuj D. Sagar. 2022. “The Why, What and How of Capacity Building: Some Explorations.” Climate Policy 22 (5): 549–556. Lee, Hyunji, Sohaib Athar, Jesper Steffensen, Roland White, and Ayah Mahgoub. 2022. Performance-Based Fiscal Transfers for Urban Local Governments: Results and Lessons from Two Decades of World Bank Financing. Washington, DC: World Bank. LSE Cities. 2023. Old Cities New Ambitions: The Future of Urban Europe. London: London School of Economics. Mantino, F., B. Forcina, and A. Morse. 2023. Methodological Framework to Define Functional Rural Areas and Rural Transitions. Brussels: (RUSTIK) Rural Sustainability Transitions through Integration of Knowledge for Improved Policy Processes. Marin, A. M., Eugen Glăvan, Alin Chiș, and Bogdan Corad. 2023. “EU Funds Absorption for Romanian Rural Municipalities: A Spatial Distribution.” Center for Open Science. Moser, Susanne C., Julia A. Ekstrom, Julia Kim, and Samantha Heitsch. 2019. “Adaptation Finance Archetypes: Local Governments’ Persistent Challenges of Funding Adaptation to Climate Change and Ways to Overcome Them.” Ecology & Society 24 (2). Nago, Minette, and Max Krott. 2022. “Systemic Failures in North–South Climate Change Knowledge Transfer: A Case Study of the Congo Basin.” Climate Policy 22 (5): 626–636. 53 A FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMIC CAPACITY BUILDING IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AN EU PERSPECTIVE OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2008. “The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good Practice.” OECD Journal on Development 8/3 (OECD) 45. https://doi.org/10.1787/journal_dev-v8-art40-en. OECD. 2011. “The Enabling Environment for Capacity Development.” Perspectives Note, OECD. OECD-DAC. 2006. The challenge of capacity development: Working towards good practice. DAC Network on Governance. JT00200369. DCD/DAC/GOVNET(2005)5/REV1 Oh, Youngmin, Seong-ho Jeong, and Heontae Shin. 2019. “A Strategy for a Sustainable Local Government: Are Participatory Governments More Efficient, Effective, and Equitable in the Budget Process?” Sustainability 11 (19): 5312. Otoo, Samuel, Natalia Agapitova, and Joy Behrens. 2009. The Capacity Development Results Framework: A Strategic and Results-Oriented Approach to Learning for Capacity Development. Washington DC: World Bank Institute. Petak, Zdravko. 2006. “Policy in a Transitional Context: Performing Decentralization in Croatia.” In The Work of Policy: An International Survey, edited by Hal K. Colebatch, 83–106. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Piña, Gabriel, and Claudia N. Avellaneda. 2017. Local Government Effectiveness: Assessing the Role of Administrative Capacity. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile. Pottter, Christopher, and Richard Brough. 2004. “Systemic Capacity Building: A Hierarchy of Needs.” Health Policy and Planning 19 (5): 336–345. PPMi. 2021. Study on Peer Learning Tools for the Administrative Capacity Building of Member State Bodies Involved in the Management of Funds from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund. Brussels: European Commission, DG REGIO. Salazar-Adams, Alejandro. 2024. “The Influence of Organisational and Staff Characteristics on Local Governments’ Efficiency: The Case of Mexican Municipalities.” Local Government Studies 50 (2): 287–306. Selden, Sally Coleman, and Jessica E. Sowa. 2004. “Testing a Multi-Dimensional Model of Organizational Performance: Prospects and Problems.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (3): 395–416. Setiawan, Arif, Prijono Tjiptoherijanto, Benedictus R. Mahi, and K. Khoirunurrofic. 2022. “The Impact of Local Government Capacity on Public Service Delivery: Lessons Learned from Decentralized Indonesia.” Economies 10 (12): 323. Shah, A., and T. Thompson. 2004. Implementing Decentralized Local Governance: A Treacherous Road with Potholes, Detours, and Road Closures. Washington, DC: World Bank. Shtjefni, Drilona, Giulia Ulpiani, Nadja Vetters, Giorgos Koukoufikis, and Paolo Bertoldi. 2024. “Governing Climate Neutrality Transitions at the Urban Level: A European Perspective.” Cities 148: 104883. Smeriglio, Alba, John Bachtler, Fabrizio De Francesco, Karol Olejniczak, Robert Thomson, and Pawel Sliwowski. 2015. Administrative Capacity Building and EU Cohesion Policy. Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre. https:/ /institute.eib.org/. 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY Smit, Barry, and Mark W. Skinner. 2002. “Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology.” Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 7.1 (2002): 85-114. Susskind, Lawrence, and Amber Kim. 2022. “Building Local Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change.” Climate Policy 22 (5): 593–606. Terracciano, Brian, and Paolo R. Graziano. 2016. “EU Cohesion Policy Implementation and Administrative Capacities: Insights from Italian Regions.” Regional & Federal Studies 26 (3): 293–320. Tiganasu, Ramona, Cristian Incaltarau, and Gabriela Carmen Pascariu. 2018. “Administrative Capacity, Structural Funds Absorption and Development. Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries.” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 18 (1): 39–59. Tosun, Jale. 2014. “Absorption of Regional Funds: A Comparative Analysis.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (2): 371–387. Tran, Carolyn-Thi Thanh Dung, and Brian Dollery. 2023. “An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Administrative Intensity on the Operational Efficiency of the Victoria State Local Government System in Australia.” Local Government Studies 49 (3): 544–567. UNDP. 2008. Capacity Assessment Methodology User’s Guide. New York. Capacity Development Group, Bureau for Development Policy. UNDP. 2009a. Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer. New York: UNDP Capacity Development Group. UNDP. 2009b. The UNDP Approach to Supporting Capacity Development. UNDP. http://content- ext.undp.org/aplaws_assets/2072460/2072460.pdf. van Baalen, S. M., C. S. L. Schutte, and K. Von Leipzig. 2015. “Capacity Self-Assessment as a Catalyst for Improved Municipal Service Delivery.” Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering 57 (1): 2–15. van Popering-Verkerk, J., A. Molenveld, M. Duijn, C. van Leeuwen, and A. van Buuren. 2022. “A Framework for Governance Capacity: A Broad Perspective on Steering Efforts in Society.” Administration & Society 54 (9): 1767–1794. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539972110699 Weber, Martin, and Chrysoula Latopoulou. 2023. “Is Additional EU Funding for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion through the Recovery and Resilience Facility Likely to Result in More Investments?” Ekonomiaz: Revista vasca de economía 103: 301–311. Wu, X., M. Ramesh, and M. Howlett. 2015. “Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Policy Competences and Capabilities.” Policy and Society 34 (3–4): 165–171. 55