Commentary on the physical planning process in Montenegro. Ciarán Cuffe, Consultant to United Nations Development Programme, April 2002

Abstract
The author travelled throughout Montenegro for a week in March 2002. He met with different actors in the planning process, ranging from planners working in municipal authorities to government advisors and representatives of non-governmental organisations.

The planning system within the Republic of Montenegro has failed to adjust significantly to the reality of the free market. Levels of compliance vary, but a significant amount of building activity operates outside of the formal planning process.

The Government of Montenegro has initiated a process of legislative reform and intends to prepare a new Nation Plan similar to that initiated with UNDP assistance twenty years ago. However the making of a new Plan may be premature pending structural changes within the planning system itself.

A new National Plan is superfluous unless there is a strong commitment through all branches of government to working together to provide a transparent and accountable planning system that is responsive to the needs of the communities that it serves.

It is proposed by the author that the Expert Committees set up by the Government of Montenegro to initiate planning reforms should receive the assistance of foreign expert knowledge as part of their deliberations in the shorter term.

A detailed intensive programme of planning education is proposed that will provide key players in Montenegro with an exposure to modern European planning practice. This may be carried out within Montenegro or in a European country, possibly the Republic of Ireland. The essential elements of such a programme are included. A pilot project in plan preparation and management may also form part of the programme.

The success of the planning education programme may be used to determine the scope for more in-depth involvement by UNDP in the process of reform of the planning systems in Montenegro.

Ciarán Cuffe, Architect and Planner

MRIBA, MRTPI, MRIAI, MIPI

April 2002

Table of Contents

Abstract 1

Terms of Reference 3

Overview 5

Introduction........ 5

History. 5

Account of study visit........... 6

Current planning system.. 7

Montenegro’s future planning proposals 8

Summation 8

European Planning 10

European planning system characteristics.. 10

Challenges in European planning systems 11

Recent trends in Western Europe 12

Recommendations.. 14

Appendix One....... 16

Short-term measures 16

Contact details for Planning Experts 18

Appendix Two...... 19

Project document.......... 19

Introduction...... 19

Format of the Project.......... 19

Topics for discussion by participants........ 20

Pilot Project 21

Overall Project Outcome 21

  Terms of Reference

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) commissioned the author to travel to Montenegro in March 2002, and prepare a report on the planning system.

This report is an initial assessment of the physical planning process in Montenegro with an emphasis on systemic issues.

The Consultant was required to carry out the following, with the full support of the Ministry for Environment and Physical planning and other relevant institutions:

1.     Review current institutional and systemic arrangements for planning and development

2.     Review the current legislation in terms of Policy/Practice gap

3.     Interview key actors in all sectors of society including Government, Legal Enforcement Agencies, Municipal Authorities, NGOs and others in relation to planning and development

4.     Identify the main causes of under performance in terms of change in environment, enforcement, public acceptance and other issues as they arise.

5.     Devise recommendations for developing a strategic framework for improving planning controls and physical development in Montenegro. This may include but not exclusively:

a)    -Changes to legislation

b)    -Planning framework modifications

c)     -Public participation in planning process

d)    -Enforcement & standards

e)    -Incentives

This Report contains a series of written recommendations to government for further action in relation to problems identified, and in Appendix One contains in a Project Document format, a proposal to seek funding and support to cover the recommendations outlined to Government in the standard UNDP ProDoc format.

Overview

Introduction

The author visited Montenegro between 22nd and 29th March 2002, and travelled throughout the Republic meeting key actors involved in the planning and development process.

The planning system has been severely challenged by the sweeping changes that have occurred over the last decade. The System has been unable to respond to the demands of the free market. Significant structural reforms are required if planning is to guide and assist with the changes that are taking place within the region.

There is a detailed planning framework in place in Montenegro at Republican, Regional, Municipal and Neighbourhood level. However this framework is cumbersome, and is ill-equipped to encourage or facilitate private sector development. This framework is also peripheral to many branches of government, as the finances are not in place to initiate or complete state-led construction projects

History

The UNDP has had a long association of involvement in physical development planning in Montenegro.

In association with the then Socialist Republic of Montenegro Institute for Town-Planning and Design in Titograd (Podgorica) they prepared a Physical Development Plan of the Republic and Master Plans. Svetislav Popovic, the General Director of the Republican Office for Urban and Project Planning, presented this author with a copy of the Plan. That copy is now with the head of the UNDP office in Podgorica.

A preliminary inspection of the Plan revealed it to be comprehensive document. Along with a written text, it contains a large number of graphic illustrations depicting current state and future proposals for population location, agriculture, tourism development and industrial activity. However the document has been super-ceded by both political events in the region and changing planning goals at international level. It does nevertheless remain as an impressive base document that can inform any future planning proposals by Government and the UNDP.

Account of study visit

Fifteen meetings were held with different actors involved in the planning process in Montenegro. The individuals include government representatives, municipal authorities, private developers and Non-Governmental Organisations. Almost all parties were in agreement that significant structural reforms are necessary if physical planning is to be either relevant or achievable.

The region’s mountainous topography places significant restrictions on development. This has led to high prices of up to €150 per square metre being paid for development land along the coastline, where building land is scarce. Inland from the coast the limited flat land has been traditionally used for agriculture, but the unrestricted development of dwelling units and businesses premises is placing pressure on infrastructure and uses valuable land in an inefficient manner.

At municipal level there was widespread dissatisfaction with the cumbersome process of obtaining approval from government for land use plans prepared for the local authority. Enforcement powers were limited and restricted to buildings less than one thousand square metres in area. In one municipality a senior planner gestured to a low-density housing development outside her office, stating that the land was designated as a park, but she had no powers to enforce the planning designation.

Plans were often out-dated and placed restrictive conditions of private developers. Plans were often extremely detailed at scales of 1.500, or 1.250, yet bore little relationship to proposals on the ground.

Failure to comply with planning conditions was commonplace, particularly in coastal towns. This ranged from building projects where the developer added several floors to approved planning proposals to instances of significant development that had occurred outside the planning process.

At best this creates economic, social and environmental challenges, at worst it represents risk-taking that may have catastrophic results in the event of seismic activity being repeated on the scale of previous recorded events.

NGO’s mentioned problems at both strategic and local level. These ranged from inadequate transport planning at Republican level, to unsatisfactory zonings and large numbers of unauthorised developments in different municipalities. An official in Podgorica mentioned that there may be as many as twenty five thousand unauthorised buildings within the municipality

Deputy Minister Dragoljub Markovic stated that there were three pressing requirements:

a)    A programme of legislative reform relating to planning and land-use

b)    A new physical plan

c)    Professional training for planners

Current planning system

The current planning system is largely unchanged from former socialist times. There are four main levels of plans:

1 (National) Spatial Plan for territory    1:50 000

2 Local General (urbanistic) Plan    1:10 000

3 Detailed urbanistic plan / Regulation plans  1:1 000 

4 Urbanistic project / Neighbourhood Plans  1:500

There are also special or Strategic Plans that cover the National Parks and Coast at a 1: 5 000 scale. In theory these Plans together form a framework that regulates development throughout the Region. In reality the planning system is far removed from the realities of the free market, and in the absence of relevance or enforcement is often sidelined from the process of development.

In 1995 the Republic of Montenegro adopted a new Physical Planning and Design Act. While there are many positive aspects to this legislation there are also some areas of concern: Future plans appear to be unduly comprehensive. Plans cover a wide area of concern ranging from utilities to infrastructure to detailed building design. The Act also provides for a wide range of functions that may be exercised by the Minister thus potentially limiting local autonomy. While this may be necessary in order to limit excess development in certain municipalities, it may excessively curtail local government powers.

The Act states that there should be cohesion between different plan levels, with higher level plans taking precedence, but this process appears not be working as well as it might.

In the past many land-use plans were prepared and co-ordinated by the Republican Office for Urban and Project Planning. This Institute has downsized significantly in recent years and is currently under-financed and under-resourced. It has also shed approximately two thirds of its staff. It had a lead role in the preparation of the previous National Plan that was updated in 1996.

Montenegro’s future planning proposals

Montenegro is currently initiating a new Spatial Plan of the Republic. Expert Committees have been appointed to deal with both legislative issues and the Plan itself. This Plan has the potential to assist in the setting out of strategic aims within the Republic, as well as co-ordinating activity between different Government Departments. It may also be used as keynote project that will bring Montenegro’s Planning System up to modern Western European Standards. Given the importance of European Union (EU) policies, the Plan may bridge the gap between modern planning concerns and the inherited system of socialist planning. It may also contain projects that would meet with EU approval.

Reform of land ownership, local government and taxation is also required. Most people agreed that planning issues could not be dealt with in isolation, and that a package of measures is required to give credibility to any new Plan.

A Bill on Local Self-Government has been published. This will grant significant powers to local authorities to initiate activity and carry out works. It may give more strength to the planning system at local level.

There is a strong commitment to preparing a new National Plan. However Government cutbacks, as well as in information deficit on modern European planning techniques may curtail the project.

Summation

Montenegro’s development is severely handicapped by an inherited socialist planning system. There has been little structural change in planning legislation or practice. Most practitioners believe that root and branch reform of the planning system is required.

Many practitioners believe that the complexity of the planning system encourages unauthorised and illegal development which places a drain on resources, and which undermines the rule of law.

In 1991 the Independent Ecological Republic of Montenegro was declared. Fundamental planning reforms are required if the Republic is to meet the level of sustainability required in its name. The multi-layered mesh of planning is heavily criticised by practitioners and developers alike.

Planning difficulties are compounded by the conflicts of recent years and by the uncertainty surrounding Montenegro’s future relationship to Serbia and the neighbouring countries. Nevertheless a reformed planning system could make infrastructural provision more efficient, assist in future development, and improve standards of environmental management and public participation.

An overview of the characteristics and trends in modern European Planning Systems is now provided in order to assist in mapping out the path towards reform that is now required in Montenegro.

European Planning

European planning system characteristics

“ Europe 2000+ Cooperation for European Territorial development “ published by the European Commission in 1995 presents an overview of planning systems within the member states of the European Union. In outlining the characteristics of modern planning systems it provides a pathway for countries in Eastern Europe that are facing the accumulated problems of infrastructural and environmental neglect. It states that a common framework for territorial planning is required if sustained and balanced economic development is to be achieved.

The form of planning systems and practice is normally determined by history, geography and cultural traditions. It is also determined by the state of economic and urban development, and by the political orientation of the State. Clarity is required in the area of land ownership and development rights for a planning system to operate effectively. This is reflected in the systems of taxation and compensation. Finally the constitutional structure affects citizen’s rights, and their ability to participate in the planning process.

Countries differ in whether their planning system is centralised or decentralised. The Danish system has devolved power to local authorities, allowing them a wide range of control over development within their area. France has also devolved considerable powers to local level in recent years. In Germany the Lander or regions exercise control over planning within their jurisdiction. However in the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland, the finals decision lies with national government.

Some planning systems are reactive and others proactive. In the UK after the Second World War, and in the former Yugoslavia the systems were largely proactive. Those who produced plans had the resources and financing to carry them out. New towns and industry could be planned and constructed according to higher-level plans. In the 1990’s there has been a trend towards reactive planning. This allows the private sector to operate within a broad planning framework, yet it does not place undue restrictions on development.

An emerging trend is greater cooperation between cities and regions at the level of strategic spatial planning in order to assist in economic development.

Western European countries differ in whether their planning systems are regulatory or discretionary. Regulatory planning ensures that development occurs within a highly detailed legally binding plan. Under a discretionary system development rights are determined by negotiation and administrative discretion. The right to develop is determined by the granting of planning permission within a system of development control. In the UK and Ireland a discretionary system allows for a high level of discretion by the planning authority.

Challenges in European planning systems

Europe has adapted to the changes of the last decade by streamlining planning systems and by providing resources to under-developed regions. Economic volatility has placed pressure on planning systems to react quickly to development proposals.

The emergence of a Single European market against a background of increasing globalisation represents a major challenge to all planning systems. There is increasing competition to attracting inward investment and capital is more mobile. If undue restrictions are placed on economic activity it simply moves elsewhere where less onerous conditions apply. An efficient and responsive planning system is therefore required if development prospects are to be maintained or enhanced.

Trans-European Networks are radically transforming transportation, telecommunication and energy networks within the European Union. Locations on these networks have generally prospered, however peripherality can be increased for those not served directly by new connections or corridors.

Environmental issues have increased in importance in recent years. Following the rhetoric of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1991 there has been a strong expansion of environmental legislation through the issuing of directives by the European Commission. Higher environmental standards increase costs of production, however such standards are crucial, particularly if tourism is targeted for expansion.

Increasing urbanisation in Europe follows global trends. The planning response has been to limit low-density urban sprawl and ensure that standards of green space provision and social facilities are required in urban areas.

Recent trends in Western Europe

A more comprehensive and complex form of spatial planning is evolving in Europe. Rather than looking at spatial planning in isolation it is now necessary to examine economic development, tourism, waste management, water quality and nature protection. This is a shift away from purely physical matters of location and land use to a wider concern with social, economic, environmental and political matters.

Market forces move quickly within the global economy. Firms are now freer as regards location, and spatial planning mechanisms must be able to respond quickly to changing market circumstances. This has led to a streamlining of planning procedures. Such procedures must be transparent, and operate within a set timeframe in order for users of the planning system to be satisfied.

Planning systems are becoming increasingly transparent and accessible to the general public. Most countries now allow the general public to view all documentation submitted as part of the planning process. This can increase confidence and a sense of ownership in the system. It can also ensure that inequalities or bias are readily visible to outsiders. In some countries Freedom of Information legislation has been passed to ensure the publics right to information on procedures and documentation being processed at local or national level.

Environmental standards have increased throughout Europe. From water supply to sewage disposal there is now an onus on state and local authorities to reduce pollution and meet higher environmental standards. While this increases demands on infrastructure it is also an opportunity for developing countries to capitalise on their relatively unspoilt state.

Decentralisation of responsibility for planning to regional and local authorities is occurring across Europe. While there is usually a mechanism of appeal of last resort to the State, there is now recognition that most planning decisions can be made at a local level. Against this trend however there is a need for major infra-structural projects to proceed if they are crucial for national development.

Planning Systems in Western Europe have been significantly revised in recent years. Although the European Union and national governments can intervene to assist under-performing regions there is now a growing reluctance to interfere with the free market. This places increasing pressure on planning systems to deliver tangible results within specific time-scales.

Recommendations

Montenegro‘s planning system is at a crucial stage in its evolution. The recommendation of the two Expert Committees set up to examine legislative changes and the plan itself will influence the future direction of planning policy and practice within the Republic.

In the first instance it is recommended that both of these Committees receive expert advice on modern European planning systems. Proposals in this regard are enclosed in Appendix One.

In the medium term it is recommended that a capacity building programme is provided to the major actors involved in the reform of planning legislation and the preparation of the proposed new National Development Plan. This can include organizing training and workshops and can include the setting up a pilot project to prepare a land-use plan for an area that is undergoing or about to experience development.

This may in time lead on to committing resources towards assisting in the preparation of the new Plan. However a strong exposure to planning systems abroad is required before a commitment is made to assisting the Government of Montenegro with a new National Plan.

 This exposure may strengthen the resolve of all parties to implement root and branch reforms to the existing planning system. A new National Plan is superfluous unless there is a strong commitment through all branches of government to working together to provide a transparent and accountable planning system that is responsive to the needs of the communities that it serves.

Therefore an exposure to modern European planning systems is an initial exercise that should be carried out prior to the making of a new Plan. Such an exposure may lead to a consensus between all parties on the reforms that are required.

These reforms may include inter alia new proposals for public consultation, freedom of information, environmental protection and market reforms within the planning process. This may lead to an increased ‘sense of ownership’ of the planning system by the general public. It may lead to a decrease in illegal or unauthorised development. It may also increase environmental protection, and safeguard the natural and tourism resources of the country.

The success of the capacity building programme shall determine whether UNDP should commit additional resources to detailed assistance with the preparation of the new National Plan.

Appendix OnShort-term measures

The Monenegran Planning and Development system appears to have had few changes over the last ten years. The transition to democracy has allowed a significant amount private development to occur. A substantial amount of this construction activity appears to be unregulated or unauthorised.

Many of the people that I met were aware of the fundamental systemic difficulties of the planning system. Most believed that a move towards the type of planning systems common in European Union Countries is required. However there appeared to be little evidence of significant changes within the planning process at any level of plan making. There also appears to be little information available to Montenegrins in regard to the fundamental principals of a modern planning system.

Montenegro is at the early stage of reforming its system of governance. The post Yugoslavia era is only in an embryonic stage. Establishing a ‘Spatial Plan of the Republic’ is an ambitious aim. As Montenegro and Serbia and neighbouring countries move towards accession to European Union Membership, the need for planning reforms will increase. The making of a Spatial Plan can be part of that process.

However this cannot happen in isolation. It is crucial that modern concepts of

public participation, freedom of information, rights of appeal, sustainability and enforcement are incorporated into all levels of planning. It is also important that the system of land tenure is reformed.

This requires fundamental systemic changes. Reform of legislation is underway but there is a danger that it may fall short of what is required. There are currently two expert committees operating under the Ministry of Urban Planning(?) examining legislative changes and the Spatial Plan respectively. Expanding their knowledge base through study visits abroad to examine other planning systems or through bringing expert advisors on a short-tem basis to Montenegro would be useful in the short-term.

Ireland has recently enacted a comprehensive piece of consolidating planning legislation, the Local Government (Planning and Development ) Act 2000. It is also implementing a National Plan 2000 – 2006, and it is at the final stage of preparing a National Spatial Strategy. I recommend that the two expert Committees should be advised by Irish experts that are familiar with, or are involved in the process of reform in Ireland.

in the area of planning law. I would recommend Professor Yvonne Scannell of Trinity College Dublin. As author of ‘Environmental and Planning Law’ she would be well placed to speak in this area. I also believe that she is a good communicator. I would also recommend Berna Grist. She is my former planning lecturer on the Masters course in Planning in University College Dublin, and now is a member of the Board of An Bord Pleanala. In addition she is the author of ‘An Introduction to Irish Planning Law.’

In the area of plan preparation, I recommend Niall Cussen, currently seconded to the Department of the Environment and Local Government from An Bord Pleanala. Niall is young, enthusiastic and involved at the heart of the preparation of Ireland’s National Spatial Strategy. (www.IrishSpatialStrategy.ie).

I would also recommend John O’Connor, formally of the Department of the Environment, and now Chairman of An Bord Pleanala. Finally one of my colleagues Henk Van Der Kamp from the new School of Environmental Planning and Management in Dublin Institute of Technology would have a great understanding of European Planning systems, including his native Holland.

Appendix Two

Project document

Introduction

The objective of the project is to assist the process of reforming the planning system of Montenegro.

The project shall consist of capacity building, education and training for those involved in the preparation of new planning legislation and the new National Plan of Montenegro. This shall include the membership of the two expert groups, but may also include other interested parties such as those involved in the new centre for Planning as well as the Republican Office for Urban and Project Planning.

A pilot project may also be included. This shall consist of the preparation of a general planning scheme for a town or district in Montenegro that is currently experiencing change or development.

Format of the Project

This shall principally consist of a series of intensive workshops on current best practice experience of European planning systems.

This may be provided through intensive study visits abroad or by the use of outside experts travelling to Montenegro. In either case it is envisaged that the format shall be a weeklong period of intensive exposure and information exchange between the interested parties.

In the event that a foreign location is chosen the author would recommend the Republic of Ireland, as it has recently passed consolidating planning legislation in the form of the Local Government (Planning and Development ) Act 2000. Training could be carried out under the auspices of the Institute of Public Administration in the city of Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.

Topics for discussion by participants

It is intended that those participating in the project shall cover the following areas from a planning perspective.

• Freedom of Information

This shall cover recent developments at EU level in making all information relevant to planning issues available to all interested parties.

• Public Involvement

Different models of public consultation and participation shall be addressed, including methods relevant to the formulation of strategic plans such as invitations for public submissions. It shall also cover methods appropriate to neighbourhood planning such as workshops and public meetings.

• Environmental Protection

Recent developments in European law shall be covered, including recent Directives and proposals for strategic environmental assessment, as well as practical examples of Environmental Impact Statements.

• Ease of Use

Methods for co-ordination and co-operation between agencies shall be discussed, including methods of disseminating information to all interested parties.

• Fiscal Issues

The use of land taxes, development charges and levies as well as tax incentives shall be considered under this heading.

• Area Action Planning

This shall provide an overview of different types of local plans including areas of special interest such as historic town centres and brown-field sites.

• Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

Modern computing techniques and data management have transformed the process of information management and plan preparation. Different examples of GIS applications hall be examined and discussed.

• European Planning Systems

The different legal frameworks and systems of planning in operation in Western Europe shall be addressed, as well as recent European Union changes and initiatives.

• Enforcement

This shall cover methods of securing penalties against unauthorised or illegal development, and way of increasing participation by all parties in the legitimate planning process.

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but is included to illustrate areas where exposure to recent western European experience may be of use to those on the working groups.

The project shall consist of capacity building, education and training for all those involved in the preparation of new planning legislation and the new National Plan of Montenegro.

Pilot Project

This proposal shall consist of the preparation of the preparation of a land-use plan and management model for an area that is about to experience, or that is already experiencing development and change.

This shall be carried out with a real-life situation within the Republic. The sensitive reservoir catchment area or outlying suburbs of Podgorica may be considered for this proposal. They shall be assisted in preparing the proposal by international experts.

It shall act as a practical example for the application of the skills acquired during the training period. This project may be used in determining the scope for greater involvement by UNDP in strategic planning within Montenegro.

Overall Project Outcome

This project shall increase the capacity of planners in Montenegro to manage socio-economic and environmental change within the Republic. Exposure to international best practice in urban planning, environmental management, participatory consultation and information systems will enable decision makers and planners to better manage development.

A successful outcome shall be measured by some, or all of the following indicators:

-the extent that best European planning practice is incorporated into Montenegro’s planning law reforms,

-a decrease in the amount of unauthorised or illegal development,

-an increase in environmental quality within the Republic,

-an increase in economic activity, and

-an increase in public participation in the planning process.

The success of the capacity building shall determine whether UNDP should proceed with providing technical assistance in the preparation of the major task of providing a new National Plan for Montenegro.

ENDS