MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE (MEG) PROJECT

MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE (MEG) PROJECT METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO PARTNER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGH BETTER MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE TO HIGHER QUALITY SERVICES AND WELLBEING FOR THE CITIZENS Page of 7

Table of Contents. INTRODUCTION.... WHAT IS A LOCAL GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?.... WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE PROJECT PARTNER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS?... 4 4. WHAT IS THE PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANTING METHODOLOGY FOR ON-BUDGET SUPPORT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND HOW DOES IT WORK?... 5 Step : Setting the performance indicators... 5 Step : Local governments work to improve municipal policy and organisational frameworks thus advancing their performance... 6 Step : Conduct 7 mid-year monitoring of progress... 6 Step 4: Conduct annual external evaluation of results... 6 Step 5: Implement selected priority projects co-financed by the grant scheme... 7 5. THE SEQUENCING OF THE PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANT SCHEME... 8 6. MAIN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR THE 7-9 CYCLE... 8 7. PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANT CALIBRATION...

. INTRODUCTION The MEG Project (the Project) (Phase, 6-) is among the largest and most complex local governance interventions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, financed by the Government of Switzerland and implemented by UNDP in partnership with domestic institutions. The Project aims to advance institutional capacity of 8 partner local governments to apply good governance principles, provide quality local services, effectively interact with relevant stakeholders and create business-conducive environments, enabling job creation and economic growth. In its work, the Project places particular attention on the economic and environmental sectors. The Project will support its partner local governments (municipal councils and administrations) to establish sound public policy and management systems through improved structures, regulatory frameworks, capacities and attitudes by municipal employees and elected officials. This will entail reformtype of efforts by municipal leaderships and employees, towards more effective and citizen-centred municipal governance and service delivery. Sound performance management systems implying excelling technical and political performance will be awarded through financial resources for realization of local priorities in the environmental and economic sectors. Such performance-based financial assistance will serve as an incentive for partner local governments and will ultimately reward both the political leaderships for successfully rooting challenging and sensitive reforms, as well as the administrative performance of municipal staff.. WHAT IS A LOCAL GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM? The concept of local governance performance management is seen as a new approach to municipal governance, introducing relevant structures, functions and processes, which enable strategy-informed, systemic and budget-aligned public policy delivery, with stronger role of municipal councils in decisionmaking and oversight. The concept implies local governments shift away from classical administrative and utility-related affairs towards whole-of-governance (encompassing the municipal leaderships, administration, utilities) and result-oriented approach to local development and service delivery. The main characteristics of this model, which will be taken, developed and applied by the Project, are: strengthening the role and engagement of municipal councils and municipal leaderships in development management and realisation of legitimate priorities; improving municipal regulatory and organisational frameworks, enabling more effective performance and service delivery; establishing/strengthening a local development management function within local administrations, which drives the overall coordination of strategies implementation, facilitates cross-departmental interaction, and monitors short-term and long-term development results and service delivery outcomes; encouraging regular cross-departmental coordination in planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting of policy delivery and development results; introducing short-term (annual) operational planning based on the local strategies and directly linked with municipal budgets, in consultation with the citizens;

translating annual operational plans into departmental plans, so all envisaged public service/development management priorities have their concrete implementation address and responsible units; delivering short-term tasks and priorities systemically, by utilising own and attracting additional external funds; monitoring annual progress based on set performance benchmarks and capturing result-based achievements to be shared with the citizens. All these enable effective realization of local development strategies, transformation of local governments into development-conducive, cost-efficient, effective, and people-centred governance service providers. This concept will be the springboard of effective, inclusive, and accountable public policy management system to be introduced within the Project s partner local governments.. WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE PROJECT PARTNER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS? MEG Project works with selected partner local governments, clustered in two geographic areas - North- West, including Una-Sana Canton / Prijedor region and North-East, covering the wider Doboj / Tuzla region and covering more than 8, citizens of the country.

4. WHAT IS THE PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANTING METHODOLOGY FOR ON-BUDGET SUPPORT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND HOW DOES IT WORK? Performance-based granting methodology for financial support to local governments within the MEG Project is a mechanism for awarding financial assistance (aimed for co-financing priority projects in the environmental and economic sectors) to partner local governments based on their performance results. Thus, the performance-based granting is designed to condition partner local governments access to financial support with sound and tangible performance, as well as to stimulate partners to strive towards more effective policy management and service delivery. The innovative feature behind this mechanism is that it creates linkages between a partner local government performance and grant funds that a local government will eventually receive, conditioned on their performance. In all cases, financial support to partner local governments under the performance-based grant methodology will be exclusively used for realisation of capital investment priorities originating from development strategies, in the economic and environmental sectors. The Project will offer financial support to best-performing partner local governments in two cycles, as follows: 7-9 and 8- (as described within - Sequencing of the Performance based grant scheme below). The total available Project financial resources for the performance-based grant mechanism amount to approximately CHF 4 million (Four Million Swiss Francs). The information below describes the process and steps within a standard cycle of the performance-based grant methodology. Step : Setting the performance indicators The performance-based granting will use a set of agreed performance indicators (including baseline values). These indicators will be used to assess individual performance (and used as a baseline) as well as progress in annual performance (annual evaluation) of partner local governments against them, on an annual basis. In that sense, the allocation of the financial resources will be calibrated based on the performance curve and progress achieved by local governments. The performance indicators will be formally agreed with participating local governments by the end March 7 for the first, and then at the end of March 8 for the second cycle. Before starting to measure actual development outcomes and effects from the improved performance management systems at the local level, for its first cycle, the performance-based grant assistance will be designed around several basic performance indicators (as described within section 5 of this document). For the second cycle (8-), the financial assistance will be conditioned by more complex good governance performance criteria (to be developed in 7, in line with the future good governance model), corresponding to advancing capacities of partner local governments and pushing the delivery bar higher. At that stage, MEG Project will adjust the methodology, indicators, award approach and financial thresholds for the second cycle as relevant, considering the results and lessons learned from the first cycle (from the viewpoint of ensuring effective delivery of MEG Project financial resources for performancebased granting by the end of 9.). In addition, through direct experiences from the performance-based grant scheme and its indicators, the Project will seek to identify performance indicators and clearly define practical and feasible way for their evaluation, which can then eventually be used as standard benchmarks within the broader good governance and performance management system in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Step : Local governments work to improve municipal policy and organisational frameworks thus advancing their performance All partner local governments will initiate work on improving their policy, regulatory and organisational frameworks, optimizing practices and capacities, towards improved municipal performance and service delivery. The agreed set of performance criteria will also serve as a direction-setter, pointing to the specific areas where local governments need to focus and demonstrate progress. Local governments will work for approximately twelve () months on improving their performance and policy systems. Meanwhile, the Project will offer customised technical support to further help advancement of the municipal performance management systems. Step : Conduct 7 mid-year monitoring of progress Municipal officers/teams will perform self-assessment of progress made against the agreed performance indicators on a quarterly basis, and will send a brief progress report to MEG project team by 5 July 7 (for first quarter) and 5 January 8 (for the third quarter). In addition, after 6 months (by 5 October 7), a joint mid-year monitoring will be conducted by the relevant municipal officers/teams together with MEG Project team, to check the progress of individual partner local governments against the set performance criteria. The self-assessments and progress monitoring will provide insights on possible correction measures, and identify areas where there is a need to additionally support and accelerate efforts if no progress has been made. Results from the joint mid-year monitoring will be presented to municipal leaderships. If necessary, recommendations for corrective actions will be developed and endorsed by the mayors, to ensure positive progress in overall performance. Step 4: Conduct annual external evaluation of results By March 8, and subsequently by March 9 (for the second cycle), MEG Project will initiate external evaluation of the progress of each partner local government against the set performance indicators. The evaluation will capture the exact progress and results achieved during the previous months, entirely based on evidence, formal documentation, statistics and measurable results. The results from the evaluation will be presented to municipal leaderships (councils and mayors), while summary of the final reports will be also made publicly available to the citizens. Partner local governments will have the possibility to require re-visiting of their performance evaluation results, in case disagreements are in place. In this case, the Project will undertake additional scrutiny and based on evidence and findings will confirm or adjust its evaluation results. Based on the final results and the set criteria and scale of allocating financial resources to local governments, the Project will inform partners about the outcomes and respective amounts to be allocated to each local government in the current year. The financial assistance will be calibrated based on the performance improvements by each partner local government measured against the baseline results, while also factoring in the population size of a specific local government. The funding approach will be applied, as follows: up to 6, CHF/year for co-financing priority projects in the two sectors for local governments with the highest performance progress rate; up to 9, CHF/year for local governments with the mid-rank progress rate; and

no financial assistance to those local governments which displayed limited or no made no progress against the minimum criteria. As a general condition, local governments must match MEG Project financial resources in full (i.e. ensure at least the same amount of funds as those of MEG Project). Partner local governments not able to demonstrate sufficient progress against the set performance criteria will not have access to grant financing by the Project. Continuous failure by partner local governments to achieve progress and introduce agreed improvements in municipal governance practices and frameworks (evidenced during both the first annual and second mid-year progress evaluations) will trigger their exclusion from further Project assistance, and potentially the Project itself. The methodology for performance-based financial support to partner local governments shall be endorsed by the Project Board. Rewarding ceremony to acknowledge best-performing local governments will be organised. Step 5: Implement selected priority projects co-financed by the grant scheme Following the final performance evaluation, partner local governments will receive grant to be spent within the same fiscal year, together with own matching (or exceeding) budget resources. A special review and approval mode will be needed and applied by the MEG Project for projects whose implementation spreads beyond a -month period. As previously mentioned, financial support to partner local governments from the performance-based grant scheme in all cases will be explicitly used for realisation of priorities originating from local development strategies, exclusively in the economic and environmental sectors. For the first cycle of the grant scheme (7-9) for the environmental sector, the Project places focus on water supply and waste-water management. Therefore, priority projects from the environmental sector to be supported by the grant scheme are expected to relate mostly to water supply and waste-water management. However, all other priorities that result from the local development strategy and represent immediate development needs in the environmental or economic sector are eligible for support under the grant scheme. The priorities from the economic sector are expected to contribute to the creation of conditions for new employment, strengthening of strategic value chains and improvement/development of business enabling activities and services. Once local governments undergo annual evaluation and the volume of grant support by the Project is confirmed, partner local governments are expected to ensure that (if applicable) relevant technical documentation is ready and that the relevant property rights are undisputed. They also need to submit to the MEG Project their proposals for utilising the financial assistance, clearly explaining the type/s of project/s to be implemented, expected results and achievements, relevance to the strategic priorities of the locality, municipal budget (own) and Project financial resources, catalytic effects from the project (if any), etc. As long as the proposed investments are in line with the general conditions and sustainability requirements of the MEG Project, the municipal leadership can decide on the concrete projects to be implemented with the support of the performance-based grants. The Project will review the proposals and endorse or seek clarifications for improvements or additional input, if necessary. The next action will be to determine the modality for managing the funds, where the possibilities include standard practice of funds management funds by UNDP or potential direct transfer of resources to municipal budgets. To that end, UNDP will conduct standard external assessment of the financial management capacity, operational frameworks and transparency of partner local governments.

Furthermore, following the official signing of grant awards, partner local governments will start with the implementation of approved projects. Throughout the entire financial support process, UNDP will apply rigorous quality assurance, so as to ensure transparent and effective spending of the Project funds. 5. THE SEQUENCING OF THE PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANT SCHEME st cycle Set performance criteria nd cycle Set performance criteria st cycle (April 7 to March 8) Start introducing reforms and improving the system nd cycle Continue improving the system January 7 March 7 April 7 July 7 October 7 JanuaryZ 8 7 March 8 March 9 March st cycle Implement projects nd cycle Implement projects st cycle Baseline data st cycle First selfevaluation st cycle Mid-year progress st cycle Second selfevaluation st cycle Annual Evaluation - Measure results and award the best-performing local governments with on-budget grants nd cycle Annual Evaluation - Measure results and award the bestperforming local 6. MAIN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR THE 7-9 CYCLE Minimum performance criteria In order to qualify for assistance by the performance-based grant mechanism, partner local governments have to meet the minimum performance conditions also seen as eligibility criteria to access grants: Adopted municipal budget for 8 (adopted by legally prescribed deadlines); Co-funding obligation met the local government has ensured matching funds i.e. co-financing of minimum % to the allocated MEG funds, evidenced by a Decision of the Municipal Council;

Ensure that proposed infrastructure projects are disaster-resilient interventions and that their implementation will result in either increased coverage of population by services, or improved usage of infrastructure systems in the specific LG. Those local governments that fail to meet one or any of the above minimum criteria will not have access to the financial resources under the performance-based grant scheme. Assessment methodology and performance indicators The assessment methodology for the performance-based granting is based on several main parameters, which allow measuring progress achieved by local governments during 7 and first quarter of 8. The assessment methodology is engineered around the following main parameters: Governance areas in focus; Performance indicators; Measurement scale; Score; Indicator s weight; Source of data. Each of these is further explained and presented in details within the Performance-management assessment matrix below. In its first 7-9 cycle the performance-based granting will focus on 4 specific governance areas, as follows: ) development management and municipal employees performance; ) accountability and participatory decision-making; ) water governance and 4) economic governance (and all based on higher efficiency achieved by existing municipal employees and not intended with additional employments). Progress in each of the governance areas will be tracked based on performance indicators. Specifically, there are between two and five indicators within each focus area, comprising a set of 5 indicators in total. Subsequently, for each indicator there is a measuring scale ranging from to, detailing possible achievements based on which progress will be measured. Depending on the result achieved by the local government against the measuring scale, a relevant score will be assigned, also based on the scale, where the result of indicates that no/limited progress against the relevant indicator is in place, while is the desired progress and state of play. As previously mentioned, the evaluation system and overall methodology for the second cycle of the granting scheme can evolve based on accumulated experiences from its first cycle. In addition, the assessment methodology defines the weight for each performance indicator, with values of or, and with a total weight of the entire matrix amounting to points allocated across the governance areas as follows: The assessment methodology has been adapted from the performance-based granting model used by the Decentralisation and Municipal Support (DEMOS) Project in Kosovo (which is financed by the government of Switzerland), as well as the theory and guidance provided within the Performance-Based Grant Systems Concept and International Experience of the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF, ).

Governance area Development management and municipal employee s performance Accountability and participatory decision-making Water governance Economic governance Indicators total weight per area The methodology also envisages defining concrete and tangible source of data, which will serve as the means of verification when conducting the performance evaluation. To the maximum extent possible, the methodology seeks to ensure the use of formal and publicly available documentation, statistics and avoiding parallel data collection systems. It is important to add that at the beginning of the cycle, the Project team will present the assessment methodology to partner local governments, agree on the final set of indicators, as well as set values for baseline (March 7) for each of the indicators. Once municipal teams are familiarised with the conditions, purpose, indicators and methodology of the performance-based granting, the annual competition can start. After the evaluation is conducted and scoring has been done for all indicators in the assessment matrix, the final performance result for each local government will be calculated. 7. PERFORMANCE-BASED GRANT CALIBRATION Based on the progress made, i.e. the difference between the baseline results (March 7) and the 7 performance evaluation results (done in March 8), and accounting for the population size, each partner local government will be eligible to apply for a specified maximum amount of grant. Evaluation made in the first cycle will be calculated as a sum of individual indicators valuations per each indicator. Therefore, the formula for the calculation of the total evaluation score made in the first cycle is as follows: S b = (S + S +S +.+S 4+S 5) (baseline score as of March 7) S t = (S + S +S +.+S 4+S 5) (evaluation score as of March 8) where is total baseline score for the local governance; S b S t S, S, S 4, S 5 is total evaluation score for the local governance; are individual performance valuations (scores) as per indicators outlined in the table below (indicator weights included, meaning that actual scores are multiplied with related weights). Progress made will be calculated as the ratio of the difference of present evaluation to the baseline data (March 7) and the baseline gap, which is the difference of maximum total score (of ) and total baseline value. Thus, the formula for the calculation of the local governance progress indicator is as follows: P t = (S t-s b)/(-s b) (given in %)

Performance based total progress Pt (%) 6%< Pt 7%< Pt 6% Pt 7% Performance based progress rank Best performing local governments Mid-rank performing local governments Underperforming no progress made by local governments Amount of grant (CHF) Up to 6, CHF/year x Population I Up to 9, CHF/year x Population I No grant where Population I is a population coefficient as described hereafter. In order to factor in the population size of each partner locality, the Project will use the following four population categories, and multiply the amount of grant (in the above table) with the population coefficient. Local government Population* Population category Population coefficient Tuzla,979 Prijedor 89,97 Doboj 7,44 Large. Cazin 66,49 Bihać 56,6 Gradiška 5,77 Gračanica 45, Mid-size Tešanj 4,6 upper division.9 Sanski Most 4,475 Velika Kladuša 4,49 Gradačac 9,4 Teslić 8,56 Prnjavor 5,956 Mid-size Kalesija,5 lower division Žepče,9.85 Bosanska Krupa 5,546 Kozarska Dubica,54 Kostajnica 5,977 Small.75 * Official data from the Census

Performance-management assessment matrix for the st cycle of financial support Governance area No. Performance indicator Measurement scales Scores Indicator weight Source of data Development management. Extent to which basic elements defining performance management system are in place in the local government (basic elements defining performance management system are: a formally-set local development management function, regular cross-departmental coordination in planning, implementation, monitoring & reporting through at least meeting every two months, as well as strategy-based and budget-linked annual and departmental plans) Baseline: extent in 6. All basic elements of the performance management system are formally in place and functional, reinforced by a formally adopted procedure for development management All of the basic elements of the performance management system are formally in place Only of the basic elements of the performance management system are formally in place One or none of the basic elements of the performance management system are formally in place Municipal legal framework, internal organization and systematization, municipal documentation. >7%. % realization of annual implementation plans of local development strategies of partner local governments for 7 (measured from viewpoint of actual financial implementation against overall financial plan) 5 7% -5% Local governments formal annual reports 7 or 7 annual budget plan and report on budget execution for 7. Baseline: % realization 6. -% Page of 7

. % implementation of annual environmental departmental plan for 7 (measured from viewpoint of actual financial implementation against overall financial plan). >7 % of departmental plan 5 7 % of departmental plan -5% of departmental plan Environmental departmental plan; 7 report on its implementation or 7 annual budget plan and report on budget execution for 7. Baseline: % implementation 6 <% or there is no departmental plan 4. % implementation of annual economic departmental plan for 7 (measured from viewpoint of actual financial implementation against overall financial plan). >7 % of departmental plan 5 7 % of departmental plan -5% of departmental plan Economic departmental plan; 7 report on its implementation or 7 annual budget plan and report on budget execution for 7. Baseline: % implementation 6 <% or there is no departmental plan 5. % capital investment realisation (as % of the overall municipal budget execution) increase compared to 6. Baseline: % capital investment realisation (as % of the overall municipal budget execution in 6). >% points increase of the 6 capital investment realization percentage 6-% points increase of the 6 capital investment realization percentage -5% points increase of the 6 capital investment realization percentage Less than % increase, no increase or decrease of the 6 capital investment realization percentage Municipal budget plans and budget execution reports for 6&7. Accountability and participatory decision-making 6. % of citizens recommendations that were voiced through public consultation processes that are considered and addressed by local governments/municipal councils in 7 i.e. by solving an issue, or responding to citizen s needs. >6% -6% <% Minutes from public consultations in 7; Formal reports of local governments from public consultations. Baseline: % of solved or responded recommendations in 6. No citizens recommendations formally addressed by local governments or no public consultation processes in place.

7. # of formally responded and addressed questions posed by municipal council to the mayor/administration/utilities in 7 that have an evidence on follow-up actions. Baseline: # of questions in 6. >5 6-5 -5 No questions posed by municipal council were responded/settled Minutes from municipal councils sessions; annual reports on municipal councils work. More than 6% 8. % of citizens complaints formally addressed by the local government in 7. Baseline: % complaints in 6. Between % - 6% Up to % of complaints have been addressed through formal mechanism There is no formal mechanism for citizens complaints, or no complaints were submitted in 7, or there is no evidence that submitted complaints were addressed by the local government Municipal internal reports, information on websites. 9. Extent to which the local government has established and regularly applies mechanisms to obtain feedback on citizens satisfaction with service delivery, which directly inform follow-up actions based on recommendations and findings. Baseline: extent in 6. The local government has a functional mechanism and annually conducts (for at least two subsequent years) participatory citizen satisfaction surveys, where findings and recommendations are publicly available and inform follow-up work of the administration/utilities The local government has previously established a mechanism and has conducted at least two surveys over the past 5 years, but results are not publicly available and there is no track of follow-up work by the administration/utilities to address suggestions Formal municipal documentation (decisions, protocols, records) from establishment and functioning of citizen satisfaction feedback collection mechanisms in the past 5 years; websites of local governments.

The local government has previously established a mechanism and has conducted at least one survey over the past 5 years, but results are not publicly available and there is no track of follow-up work by the local government No citizen satisfaction mechanisms are in place.. % of non-revenue water reduction compared to 6. Baseline: % reduction compared to 5. More than % decrease of existing losses percentage Between 6% and % decrease of existing losses percentage Between % and 6% decrease of existing losses percentage Less than % decrease of existing losses percentage Formal documentation of utilities. Water management. Extent to which the local government has introduced Public Service Agreements which regulate roles and responsibilities in terms of water supply and wastewater management services, including oversight by municipal councils and citizens of utility performance. Baseline: extent in 6. There is a Public Service Agreement, which clearly defines roles, responsibilities and oversight mechanisms for municipal council, mayor, the administration, utilities and citizens There is a Public Service Agreement, which partially defines roles, responsibilities and oversight mechanisms for municipal council, mayor, the administration, utilities and citizens There is a Public Service Agreement, but it fails to clearly define roles, responsibilities and oversight mechanisms for the municipal council, mayor, the administration, utilities and the citizens Public Service Agreements adopted by Municipal Councils. No Public Service Agreement is in place

. Extent to which the local government has established transparent and publicly available process of issuing construction permits. Baseline: extent in 6. Guide for issuing construction permits (including application forms) in place and available on website Procedures for issuing construction permits are described in systematic and compressive way (Guide for issuing Construction permits), but are not publicly available. Some of the below procedures exist (but no systematic approach), but are not publicly available. Information on websites, formal municipal documentation (decisions, protocols, records). No written information/description on the process of issuing construction permits. Economic governance. Extent to which the local government has developed business enabling incentives which stimulate economic growth (these include: i) incentives for economy (period of non-paying taxes, land development fee, interest rate subsidy etc.), ii) incentives for labour force development (scholarships, subventions for education, training and prequalification), iii) financial incentives/grant schemes for specific industries/value chains identified in the local development strategy. All described incentives are formally in place and functional and there is evidence for concrete economic results yielded through their application in 7 Some of the described incentives are formally in place and there is evidence for concrete results yielded through their application in 7 Some of the described incentives are formally in place, but there is no evidence for concrete economic results yielded through their application in 7 Municipal regulatory acts, municipal internal reports, information on websites, formal municipal documentation (decisions, protocols, records) from establishment and functioning of described incentives. Baseline: extent in 6. No such incentives exist

4. Extent to which the local government has developed tools for promotion of its investment potentials and business environment quality (this includes: i) promotional materials available in local and English/other languages, ii) Investor`s Guide available in local and English/other languages, iii) trade missions/investor`s day organized once a year, iv) fairs (participation in fairs (investment and sector fairs) as a tool for promotion). All described tools are in place and functional (in use) At least two described tools are in place and functional (in use) Any of the described tools established but not functional (not in use) No such tools exist Municipal internal reports, information on websites, formal municipal documentation (decisions, protocols, records. Baseline: extent in 6. 5. Extent to which the local government has functional mechanisms in place to enable effective dialogue with the private sector. There is a formal public-private dialogue mechanism, it meets at least quarterly, and more than % of its members are private sector representatives, and it takes part in defining economic priorities and its contribution can be directly linked to concrete economic measures and policies There is a formal public-private dialogue mechanism, it meets up to twice a year and only validates economic priorities within the locality Formal municipal documentation, minutes-records from work of publicprivate dialogue body. Baseline: extent in 6. There is a formal public-private dialogue mechanism, but it is not functional and operates on ad-hoc basis No mechanism for interaction with the private sector is in place MAX TOTAL