ANÁLISIS DE LA INFORMACIÓN RECOLECTADA EN ENCUESTA DIRIGIDA A

1. Identify and Develop at Least

One Strong Champion for Reform

The local champion will be the key driver of the project. The local champion must be the one who pushes the reform forward and not the task manager or the project team. If the local champion is not convinced of the reform’s value and does not support it 100 percent, the implementation and the overall success of the project will be at risk. Therefore, it is critical for the success of the project to secure the support of a strong local champion in the design phase. If there is no support from the champion, it would be better to drop the project than to proceed without support. There is no ideal local champion when implementing a secured transactions reform, but there are some basic characteristics to look for in the local champion:

Strong political clout •

The ability to make decisions and implement them •

Good understanding of the credit market •

Conceptual understanding of secured transactions •

and its potential benefits

Financial resources that could be devoted to the •

project if needed

Support of other stakeholders •

As stated in the Public-Private Dialogue Handbook,40 _there

are certain principles that need to be considered with regard to champions, i.e. backing the right champions and not depending on a single strong champion after the initial design phase. What is clear is that it is difficult to sustain dialogue without champions from both the public

and private sectors who invest in the process and drive it forward.41

Typical candidates for the role of champion for a secured transactions project commonly include the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank. In some cases, the choice of the counterpart might not be entirely up to the team, but might be determined by demand from the counterpart, existing legislation or the mandate of any of these institutions.

The team’s government counterpart is most commonly the driver of the reform and therefore the natural champion. However, in some cases a private or public institution (e.g. the Bankers Association or the Central Bank) that is truly interested in introducing secured transactions reform as part of its own strategy could also be a key driver of the reform, although these institutions would not replace the role of the champion but rather support the reform process and strengthen the overall reform process.

Before implementation commences, the team and the government counterpart should sign a cooperation agreement or an MOU to ensure commitment. The better of these alternatives is the cooperation agreement, because it binds the two parties with respect to the obligations stipulated in it, thereby assuring certainty of the government’s commitment. This is even more critical when there is a co-financing arrangement in which the counterpart, for example, is financing part of the reform project (usually the IT component related to the secured transactions registry). Where a binding cooperation agreement is not feasible, the MOU alternative may be used. The MOU is a non-binding agreement between two or more parties to execute a joint project. It sets out the responsibilities that each party must fulfill in order to achieve the desired results. See Annex 4 for an example of an MOU.

40. See “Public-Private Dialogue Handbook: A Toolkit for Business Environment Reformers,” DFID, WB, IFC, OECD, 2006. 41. See “Charter of Good Practice in Using Public Private Dialogue for Private Sector Development”, DFID, WB, IFC, OECD, 2006.

Table 7 contains brief references for the various choices of local champions that were pursued in different countries for the implementation of secured transactions reforms.

2. Identify Stakeholder Groups and

Leaders

Creating a strong stakeholder or leader group is a critical step towards introducing a sustainable and long term support for the reform. Therefore, the team should identify the key stakeholders in the early stages of the project, make sure that all stakeholders understand the benefits of a secured transactions system, and secure their support for introducing the reform.

According to IFC’s “Guide to Stakeholder Engagement and Reform Promotion,” a stakeholder is an individual, community, or group that has something to gain or lose from the outcomes of a reform program or activity. Stakeholders may impede reform or actively promote it—they influence change or fight for the status quo. The term “stakeholder” also includes audiences who are indirectly affected by the reform. In any reform project, identifying and analyzing the needs and concerns of different stakeholders is

fundamental to shaping and implementing reform. In a secured transactions project42_{, the stakeholders may}

include, among others: The Ministry of Justice •

The Ministry of Finance/Economy •

The Ministry of Commerce •

Ministry of Industry and Trade •

Social insurance agency or National Provident •

Fund

The Ministry of Labor •

The tax or revenue authority •

The Central Bank or superintendency of banks •

The Judiciary, and particularly commercial court •

judges Banks •

Non-bank financial institutions •

Bankers Association/Leasing Association •

Private sector firms •

Notaries •

Public registries •

The Chamber of Commerce and other business •

organizations

Law firms and/or Bar Association •

Table 7: Examples of Counterparts and Champions in Secured Transactions Reform Projects

Country Champion Counterpart

Nepal Credit Bureau Ministry of Finance/Registrar Cambodia Ministry of Commerce Ministry of Commerce Vietnam Ministry of Justice and National

Registration Agency for Secured Transactions (NRAST)

NRAST

Bosnia Herzegovina Ministry of Justice Deputy Minister of Justice Albania Ministry of Finance Minister of Finance Georgia National Agency for Property Registry

(NAPR) NAPR

China Peoples’ Bank of China Peoples’ Bank of China

42. There might be other stakeholders. This is not a comprehensive list of all possible stakeholders. For more detailed information about how to conduct a stakeholders analysis please see “Strategic Communications for Business Environment Reforms: A Guide to Stakeholder Engagement and Reform Promotion”, IFC 2007.

NGOs and international organizations, including •

other donors

Representatives of academia (local university or •

country expert)

3. Form Advisory Committee or

Working Group

Once the main stakeholders have been identified, the team may form an advisory committee or working group to monitor the project. This committee or group should be organized during the design phase and should include the main stakeholders and champions. It can serve as a management and monitoring tool, support adoption of the law and the regulations, and help to resolve issues that require high-level decisions. Although it is not a requirement to create this group, it can be very useful in jurisdictions with turf battles between ministries, a complex political situation or a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Members of the working group or advisory committee should include the technical counterpart staff, the project team, and other technical experts such as local lawyers, banking experts, IT experts, etc.

The working group or advisory committee should adopt an action plan with clearly defined activities and resultant outputs and outcomes. It should include the timeframe for the completion of each activity. The example provided in a previous section (Box 5) could serve as a model for the milestones required in a detailed action plan. The working group or advisory committee should meet periodically either in person (which might not always be possible for all members) or by conference call to report progress and discuss issues.