As part of the project “Strengthening Integrity in Climate Finance,” implemented by CEA with the support of the European Union, reports have been prepared analyzing the management of climate finance in nine municipalities through the perceptions of citizens and the experiences of the business community. The reports complement the institutional review from previous phases of the project and together indicate similar challenges recognized by institutions, citizens, and the business sector in the same areas.
Three Sources with Similar Findings
When institutional data, citizens’ perceptions, and the business sector’s experiences are considered together, a consistent pattern stands out. Public procurement is confirmed as the area with the most pronounced perception of risk: 28% of citizens point to the procedure for selecting contractors as the area with the highest risk in the entire procurement process, and a similar pattern is observed in the business survey—out of 146 surveyed local businesses, 80.1% have never participated in a municipal public procurement related to green/climate finance. Among those who did participate and were not selected, they highlight the risk associated with the contract execution phase—increased costs, delayed delivery, and unclear criteria.
Awareness versus Participation
Both citizens and businesses show relatively high awareness of climate issues, but this knowledge only partially translates into their active participation in local policymaking and decision-making. The civic participation index stands at 16.2 out of 100 points—among all six measured dimensions, participation is the dimension with the weakest result. According to the research, only 10% of citizens were consulted on climate issues in the past three years.
Recognition and Trust in Oversight Institutions
The institutions responsible for monitoring the spending of public funds—the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC) and the State Audit Office (SAO)—fall among the institutions with the lowest level of public recognition and trust.
Differences Between Municipalities
The composite governance index among the nine covered municipalities has a wide range, indicating that individual municipalities achieve better results in certain aspects of climate finance management compared to others, and the exchange of good practices among local self-government units represents an untapped area with potential for further improvement.
About the Reports
The findings stem from the project’s three reports, which you can review in detail (in Macedonian with included English summary):
-
Public Opinion Poll – Climate Finance at the Local Level – perceptions of transparency, accountability, participation, and risk of corruption in local-level climate finance.
-
Composite Indices for Climate Finance from the Citizen Survey – awareness, transparency, accountability, participation, corruption risk, and trust.
-
Report and Composite Indices from the Business Survey – including an analysis of companies’ real-world experience with local public procurement.
The findings directly build upon the previously published Baseline Assessment of Integrity and Climate-Financial Risks and the Mapping of Institutional Capacities of the 9 Municipalities conducted in earlier phases of the project.
The project “Strengthening Integrity in Climate Finance” is funded by the European Union and implemented by the Center for Economic Analyses (CEA).
