Building Centre of Government Capabilities to Steer and Deliver Complex Priorities

5. Bulgaria: Guiding the implementation of long-term priorities

Abstract

This chapter examines the challenges faced by the centre of government (CoG) in steering long-term and cross-cutting government priorities. It examines how a proliferation of strategies, weak institutional frameworks, and repeated political changes can undermine attempts to create a coherent hierarchy of priorities and link them effectively to budgeting and implementation processes. Bulgaria has undertaken several reform efforts, including the development of national planning frameworks, new co‑ordination bodies, and digital monitoring tools such as Monitorstat Information System to strengthen its capacity to deliver on long-term priorities. The chapter underscores the difficulty of sustaining long-term policy direction in the absence of stable political backing and effective central co‑ordination, as ministries tend to operate in silos with limited incentives for alignment. The chapter provides suggestions for gradually strengthening strategic governance through more realistic, incremental approaches such as piloting cross-cutting priorities, enabling technical networks to work across silos, improving data and indicators, and reinforcing links between strategy, budget and monitoring rather than relying on wholesale reforms.

5.1. Introduction

Achieving complex, long-term policy priorities requires effective governance structures capable of steering cross-cutting initiatives and managing interactions, trade‑offs, and complementarities across policy areas over time. CoGs play a fundamental role in ensuring strategic coherence, co‑ordinating policies across ministries, and maintaining alignment with national and international objectives.

For Bulgaria, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a salient example of such a cross-cutting and long-term policy agenda. Bulgaria has used the goals as a practical framework to strengthen policy coherence by highlighting interlinkages across economic, social, and environmental priorities, and by making potential trade‑offs between policy choices more explicit. However, their successful integration into national frameworks depends on the ability of CoGs to exercise key functions: stewarding the policy process, ensuring coherence, acting as a bridge between the political and administrative levels, and fostering whole‑of-government engagement (OECD, 2024[1]).

Bulgaria’s experience highlights good practices and challenges of embedding a long-term vision into the policy process. In recent years, the country has taken important steps to enhance its planning architecture, including the adoption of the National Development Programme Bulgaria 2030 (NDP 2030) as a long-term strategic planning framework, and the creation of new structures to support co‑ordination and performance monitoring. Bulgaria has also made other attempts to strengthen its strategic planning capacity through more ambitious reforms. These reforms reflect a growing recognition of the need for more coherent and forward-looking policymaking.

Yet structural limitations remain. The lack of a legal framework to institutionalise and organise the strategic planning process, and limited mechanisms for cross-government co‑ordination, have weakened Bulgaria’s ability to integrate and implement strategic priorities effectively. While sectoral and thematic strategies exist, fragmentation and overlaps hinder coherence across government action. This fragmentation poses particular challenges for cross-cutting agendas which depend on sustained co‑ordination across sectors and levels of government.

These governance challenges are not unique to Bulgaria. To address increasingly complex policy challenges, across OECD countries, CoGs have been evolving to take on greater roles in strategic foresight, co‑ordination, monitoring and stakeholder engagement (OECD, 2024[1]). These expanded CoG functions are critical to aligning sectoral policies with long-term national and international commitments and to managing tensions between short-term political priorities and long-term sustainability objectives (OECD, 2024[2]).

The Bulgarian CoG, particularly the bodies directly supporting the Council of Ministers (CoMA), faces an opportunity to strengthen its role as a strategic orchestrator, ensuring that cross-cutting priorities and by extension other long-term national priorities are effectively planned, communicated, and implemented. From a policy coherence perspective, this implies moving beyond co‑ordination as a procedural function toward a more strategic role in managing cross-cutting priorities, aligning objectives, resolving interministerial trade‑offs, and ensuring that sectoral initiatives collectively contribute to shared outcomes.

This chapter examines how Bulgaria’s CoG co‑ordinates the delivery of complex, cross-cutting priorities through its strategic planning structures. It examines in particular the institutional and procedural mechanisms that enable -or hinder- the CoG’s ability to provide strategic direction and steer long-term and cross-sectoral priorities in a coherent manner. It explores how governance frameworks can be strengthened to enhance coherence, political engagement, and whole‑of-government alignment in tackling long-term priorities.

5.2. Context: Steering long-term priorities in Bulgaria

Bulgaria’s public administration operates within a complex governance environment, shaped by historically rigid administrative structures, evolving European Union (EU) regulatory requirements, and domestic political dynamics. From a policy coherence perspective, this complexity increases the risk of fragmented decision‑making, duplication of efforts, and misalignment between short‑term sectoral objectives and long‑term national priorities. As stated in the OECD Centre of Government Scan of Bulgaria (OECD, 2022[3]), the country’s current governance ecosystem is characterised by more than 200 strategic documents, most of them sectoral, without a clear hierarchy of strategies and with limited links to the budget. This overcrowding of strategies has led to an overlap of policy priorities and, therefore, a lack of common understanding within the administration of what the country’s key priorities really are. Such fragmentation undermines the government’s ability to enhance policy coherence and using an integrating framework across policy domains. Moreover, most strategies present limitations related to the existence of robust KPIs, targets, and well-developed monitoring and evaluation procedures. This limits accountability for results and weakens the use of overarching indicators for whole of government goals as a tool to track progress, identify policy trade‑offs, and adjust policies over time. All these elements become critical, as they directly affect the government’s capacity to focus on policy implementation.

To address these challenges, over the past years Bulgaria has made several attempts to modernise its governance framework, particularly to set up a more robust planning system and establish a more structured governance framework. The NDP 2030 provides a national vision that offers a high-level framework for guiding policy priorities, marking a step forward in recognising the relevance of long-term planning and attempting to link national priorities with the budget and global development goals (Republic of Bulgaria, 2020[4]). However, from a policy coherence perspective, the effectiveness of such a framework depends on the existence of mechanisms that translate strategic alignment into co‑ordinated sectoral action and resource allocation. Previous efforts included the establishment of the Strategic Planning Directorate in 2022 -under the Administration of the Council of Ministers-, the creation of a Development Council to the Council of Ministers in 2023, and the drafting of a Strategic Planning Law in 2023. The rationale was to create a better planning system to shift the administration’s culture from strategy-setting to implementation.

However, due to changing political circumstances and differing approaches to public administration reform, most of these efforts were partially implemented or were not implemented in full scale. This weakens continuity in steering long-term priorities and poses particular challenges for implementation of long-term challenges, which requires sustained co‑ordination across electoral cycles. As a result, the strategic planning system remains fragmented, facing challenges related to interministerial co‑ordination, policy coherence, and implementation capacity. This fragmentation limits Bulgaria’s ability to operationalise long-term strategies as a whole-of-government framework and to manage interactions and trade-offs between policy areas. The following section analyses the current planning system in Bulgaria and the attempted reforms as a means to understand the challenges and opportunities in the governance of long-term priorities.

5.3. Challenges and enablers to managing long-term priorities at the centre

The main body at the CoG responsible for defining and steering government policy priorities is the Strategic Development Coordination and Concessions Directorate (SDCC) at the Council of Ministers Administration (CoMA) and, until recently, the Strategic Planning Directorate (SPD). Created in 2022, the SPD was tasked with developing a framework for strategic planning, co‑ordinating institutional responsibilities, and overseeing the development, implementation, and assessment of strategic documents. It also worked to integrate strategic planning with budgeting, collaborating with the Ministry of Finance to ensure financial feasibility. In March 2025, the SPD was dissolved, and most of its functions have since been transferred to the Strategic Development, Co‑ordination and Concessions Directorate. This change reflects ongoing institutional flux and broader challenges of continuity at the CoG. Such discontinuity weakens the CoG’s capacity to sustain long‑term policy coherence and poses particular challenges for the implementation of long-term and whole of government agendas, which require stable co‑ordination arrangements over time.

One of the key initiatives in recent years was the creation of the Development Council in 2023, which was responsible for co‑ordinating the development, implementation, reporting, and evaluation of documents within the National Strategic Framework, in particular the National Development Programme Bulgaria 2030 (NDP 2030). Each time a new strategy was proposed to the CoMA, the Development Council was the body responsible for discussing its alignment with national government priorities. This gave the centre of government a key role, particularly for the SPD as it provided a stand-alone platform where their formal opinions on the alignment and methodological robustness of strategies were discussed. The Development Council also played a central role in monitoring and reporting on the NDP 2030. It was also responsible for steering the definition and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. However, this body and its working groups were dismantled upon the arrival of the new government in January 2025. The decision to dissolve it was based on concerns that it duplicated the functions of the Council of Ministers. The procedure for reviewing strategic documents was changed in December 2025. Proposals for a new strategic document, together with the opinion of the Strategic Development, Coordination and Concessions Directorate, is submitted for consideration and discussion at an operational meeting of the Council of Ministers on the basis of Art. 21, para. 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers and its administration.

In 2023, Bulgaria also created an informal network of experts on strategic planning, which promotes capacity-building activities and early-stage consultation on proposed initiatives within the strategic planning system. This network represents a positive step toward fostering horizontal co‑ordination and shared understanding across ministries, although its informal nature may limit its ability to systematically support policy coherence of long-term and cross-cutting priorities.

Finally, another key milestone was the drafting of the Strategic Planning Law, also in 2023, which represented a major attempt to institutionalise and strengthen strategic planning processes by defining procedures, setting conditions, principles, time horizons, and clarifying responsibilities across government entities. The Law aimed to formalise mechanisms for aligning sectoral and subnational strategies under a common framework, thereby strengthening the institutional foundations for the implementation of long-term priorities.

This Law aimed to ensure that sectoral and subnational strategies are aligned under a National Strategic Framework, establishing a clear hierarchy of strategies, quality assurance and control mechanisms for drafting new strategies, and reducing the current number of existing strategies. However, as of 2026, the Law has not been approved, and there is no clear sign that it will be passed soon. In 2025, the Council of Ministers adopted a Methodology for Strategic Planning, which establishes general rules for the development, monitoring, reporting, control of implementation, and evaluation of national strategic documents, but it is not fully binding as it is adopted by a Council of Ministers Decision. In the absence of a binding legal framework, the CoG’s capacity to enforce coherence and ensure consistent integration of cross-cutting and long-term priorities across strategies remains challenging.

There are different views among stakeholders regarding the potential effectiveness of such regulation, which may require additional efforts by the CoMA to ensure its acceptance and understanding across the administration. While some stakeholders interviewed for this chapter raised concerns about potential delays in planning processes that the approval of this law might bring, others highlighted significant benefits, including improved policy coherence, standardisation, and co‑ordination, as well as the possibility of improving links between the planning and budgetary systems. The Law would also empower the National Statistical Institute (NSI) to formalise guidance on indicators, enhancing data quality and monitoring capabilities. Despite resistance from some line ministries, the law’s adoption would contribute to a more coherent, efficient, and effective strategic planning system.

Furthermore, as outlined below, Bulgaria’s entire planning and budgeting system, including programme budgeting, is organised mainly around line ministries, with each institution establishing its own objectives independently, rather than aligning with overarching national strategic goals.

Although these reforms aimed to improve Bulgaria’s strategic planning system, challenges persist, particularly regarding the enforcement of planning processes, the alignment of national priorities with sectoral strategies, and the integration of the long-term and whole of government strategies into policymaking. In concrete terms, while the CoG still issues technical opinions on proposed strategies, there is no longer a stand-alone forum to discuss them, as they are now part of a broader set of formal opinions considered at the CoMA. This has resulted in a practical decrease in CoMA’s capacity to shape and co‑ordinate the whole‑of-government planning system.

The following sections present Bulgaria’s governance of the Sustainable Development Goals as an example of how they steered long term priorities within the current institutional setting.

5.3.1. A relevant framework struggling with implementation

Decree No. 52 of 10 April 2023, establishes the governance framework to support sustainable development in Bulgaria. The decree provides a comprehensive institutional and procedural structure that, if fully implemented, could enable more consistent tracking, co‑ordination, and accountability. From a policy coherence perspective, the Decree also provides a basis for strengthening horizontal co‑ordination across ministries and for aligning sectoral actions with shared national priorities. However, implementation to date has been partial and fragmented, limiting its impact on policymaking and cross-government co‑ordination although it was instrumental in the co-ordination of the second Voluntary National Review approved in 2025.

The system outlined in the decree includes the following components. Collectively, these elements establish a potentially strong co‑ordination architecture; however, their effectiveness depends on the existence of clear routines, incentives, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure coherent action across institutions:

• The Council of Ministers is responsible for steering the national SDG framework. It approves the list of lead and partner institutions, oversees reporting, and validates updates to the National Indicator List, proposed by the NSI. The Council is also in charge of endorsing the Voluntary National Reviews.

• Ministries assigned as lead institutions are tasked with overseeing monitoring and reporting for specific SDGs. Their responsibilities include co‑ordinating partner institutions, appointing focal points, contributing to the national reform programme, and supporting stakeholder engagement. They are expected to report annually on progress toward their assigned targets and indicators.

• Supporting institutions contribute relevant information and report on sub-goals and indicators within their mandate. They assist lead institutions in gathering data, tracking implementation, and identifying challenges.

• The NSI is responsible for methodological oversight and statistical co‑ordination. It maintains the national indicator list, updates indicator values, manages the SDG section on its website, and serves as the national counterpart for international statistical reporting.

• The Development Council, now dissolved, was in charge of supporting the Council of Ministers in its co‑ordinating role. The decree formally expands the Council’s mandate to include support for SDG monitoring and Voluntary National Reviews.

While responsibilities are clearly assigned, dispersing them across multiple institutions without a strong co‑ordination mechanism can lead to uneven implementation, limited ownership, and weak integration into sectoral decision‑making (OECD, 2019[5]). Despite the strength of the legal framework, implementation has remained partial and uneven. While the NSI has played a proactive role in maintaining and updating indicators, the operational routines foreseen in the decree (such as regular reporting by lead ministries, structured co‑ordination with partner institutions, and strategic use of relevant data in policymaking) have yet to be fully established.

The legal foundation is in place, but its full potential will only be realised through more systematic implementation. That means establishing regular reporting cycles and working routines, ensuring accountability for lead institutions, and integrating monitoring of such long-term strategies with existing planning and budgeting tools.

5.3.2. Lack of substantive policy alignment undermines planning on long term priorities

A key function of the CoG is to ensure policy alignment by co‑ordinating strategic priorities across ministries and linking national development objectives with sectoral policies (OECD, 2022[3])Effective policy alignment ensures that government strategies are coherent, mutually reinforcing, and operationally viable, preventing fragmentation, duplication, and contradictions in implementation. This can require a structured mechanism at the centre to steer cross-government integration, ensuring that national priorities are consistently reflected in sectoral planning, budgeting, and performance monitoring (OECD, 2024[6]). Without such co‑ordination, policies risk being developed in isolation, with ministries and agencies pursuing parallel, and sometimes conflicting, agendas. Strengthening the CoG’s policy alignment capacity is fundamental to ensuring that goals on sustainable development are not just referenced in strategic documents but are embedded in decision making, resource allocation, and accountability frameworks.

In Bulgaria, the main vehicle to translate sustainable development into national priorities is the national development strategy. The NDP 2030 is the country’s highest-ranking strategic framework document. It provides an important reference point for aligning national objectives with the long-term priorities; however, the degree to which this alignment informs sectoral decision‑making varies. Adopted in January 2020, it defines the country’s vision, priorities, and goals for sustainable development up to 2030. The programme sets three overarching strategic goals:

• Accelerated economic development, aiming to enhance Bulgaria’s competitiveness, innovation, and productivity.

• Demographic upswing, addressing challenges related to population decline and ageing.

• Reduction of inequalities, focusing on regional disparities, social inclusion, and access to quality public services.

The strategy organises policies and interventions into 5 integrated development axes and 13 national priorities. In turn, each of these 13 priorities includes multiple goals and actions, the latter called “areas of impact,” which provide a general description of the measures to be taken. For instance, the area of impact 3.1.a. Digital tools and competences, under the national priority Smart Industry states:

“Measures will be taken to stimulate the widespread use of digital technologies by businesses in order to increase the competitiveness of Bulgarian enterprises and improve the efficiency of business processes. Targeted efforts will be made to overcome the many barriers associated with limited human and organisational capital and knowledge gaps, including facilitating companies' access to digital know-how and information and communication technologies. The development of e-commerce tools and the implementation of management information systems, as well as the deployment of information security systems, will be encouraged. Bulgarian enterprises will be supported through training in the field of digital technology and information security, including using the opportunities of e-commerce and e-marketing to increase cross-border sales. Digital solutions for business development and promotion will be sought and implemented as a priority for improving the business environment. In parallel with stimulating the use of digital tools, increasing the digital competences of staff in enterprises and expanding opportunities to use digital technologies will be supported.”

Additionally, the National Development Programme specifies the relevant goals to which each area of impact relates. In this case, Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth (Sub-goal 8.3) and Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (Sub-goal 9.c). It also includes a one‑line assessment of the financial resources required, with an estimated amount and sources of financing listed (in this case from the state budget and European funds and instruments). While this illustrates an effort to map national priorities against relevant long-term priorities, such references do not, in themselves, ensure policy coherence or influence implementation choices, unless they are supported by clear targets, co‑ordination mechanisms, and accountability arrangements. Although the NDP 2030 includes provisions for monitoring and evaluation, the country has not developed impact assessments to measure the actual effects of policies, making it difficult to determine their outcomes beyond expenditure tracking and basic implementation reporting. This limits the ability to assess whether policies contribute coherently to multiple sustainable development objectives or generate unintended trade‑offs.

While the NDP 2030 represents an effort to showcase the alignment of national development priorities with long-term sustainable development goals, this alignment is largely symbolic rather than substantive. This suggests that long-term priorities are referenced ex post rather than used ex ante to inform policy choices and manage interactions between objectives. The mere reference to such long-term priorities within different areas of impact does not necessarily mean that they actively shape policy decisions, resource allocation, or strategic frameworks. Instead, they appear to be associated with existing priorities rather than being a driving force in policy formulation and implementation. This suggests that the NDP 2030 recognises the importance of global development objectives but does not fully embed them, and their integrated approach towards policymaking, into governance structures or decision-making processes.

As a result, this long-term priority is not fully integrated into Bulgaria’s development planning. Policies may align with related themes on the surface, but without clear mechanisms for formulation, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, their impact remains limited. While a regulatory framework is in place, including Decree No. 52/2023 and Council of Ministers Decision No. 613/2023, which adopts a national list of sustainable development indicators, the implementation of these frameworks remains limited. With the dismantling of the Development Council, there is no active inter-ministerial body ensuring that national targets actively contribute to these indicators. Although as of 2026 it is a requirement to include links between the strategic goals and the SDGs, there is no structured and systematic tracking progress towards the broader commitments. This weakens Bulgaria’s ability to leverage such a long-term priority as a tool for policy transformation rather than just an aspirational reference.

Moreover, this symbolic alignment can create a false sense of progress, where the long-term priorities are formally acknowledged but lack meaningful integration into policymaking, which in turn weakens accountability and obscures responsibility for managing policy trade‑offs across sectors. Without dedicated governance mechanisms, cross-sectoral co‑ordination, and policy-specific funding allocations, national policies risk remaining fragmented, with sustainability considerations treated as an afterthought rather than a core planning principle.

This lack of substantive alignment can also create confusion among stakeholders. OECD analysis highlights that some policymakers recognised challenges in the integration of such a long-term priority into policymaking, others affirmed that there is full alignment through the 2030 strategy. This can lead to misplaced expectations, reduced accountability, and missed opportunities for genuinely integrating these goals into Bulgaria’s governance framework.

5.3.3. Weaknesses in interministerial co‑ordination delays implementation

The Development Council previously oversaw the development, implementation, and evaluation of national strategic documents, promoting alignment with the NDP 2030. Its functions included approving the three‑year action plan, co‑ordinating cross-sectoral policies, monitoring progress on strategic objectives, and aligning of the national and EU funding with the implementation of the country’s governance programme. Its mission was also to lead Bulgaria’s monitoring and reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals.

However, multiple challenges undermined its effectiveness. Despite its intended role, stakeholders interviewed for this chapter noted that the Council lacked enforcement authority, allowing ministries to bypass its recommendations. While some regular written procedures existed to support the Council’s work, its role in ensuring policy coherence was further weakened by irregular meetings and ministries’ reluctance to share data and collaborate.

Several stakeholders noted that the Council’s review processes were often procedural rather than substantive, leading to delays without necessarily improving strategic alignment. In many cases, ministries continued to operate independently, prioritising institutional goals over cross-sectoral collaboration. Some ministries engaged the CoMA early in the process of drafting strategies, but others did not, leading to inconsistencies in the integration of the goals.

Under the purview of the Development Council, the government established a permanent SDG Working Group in 2023, administered by the CoMA. Within this single group, lead ministries were designated for each of the goals, with responsibility for implementation, reporting, and contributing to the second Voluntary National Review (VNR). The establishment of this working group demonstrated a valuable practice for cross-sectoral co‑ordination that, if reinforced with clearer mandates, standardised methodologies, improved data-sharing mechanisms, and CoG backing, could serve as an operational mechanism for enhancing policy coherence in the implementation of this long-term priority.

In sum, despite some obstacles, the Development Council represented an important effort in promoting co‑ordination and alignment with long-term policy priorities. With its dissolution, there is now no designated body specifically focused on overseeing interministerial strategic alignment increasing the risk of fragmented implementation and inconsistent policy execution.

Additional efforts are needed to formalise governance structures that support cross-sectoral collaboration. While the SPD/SDCC supports alignment and co‑ordination, its limited enforcement authority and the absence of a legally binding mechanism affects its capacity to fulfil this role. The establishment of network of strategic planning experts is an interesting step aiming to enhance institutional capacity and facilitate early-stage consultation on policy proposals. However, this network lacks the political influence across the administration to effectively foster co‑ordination among ministries, meaning that co‑operation often relies on personal relationships between officials.

Without a mandated co‑ordinating entity, interministerial co‑operation remains dependent on voluntary engagement, limiting the potential for systematic alignment. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity regarding which entities should arbitrate conflicting policy objectives, further complicating interinstitutional collaboration.

5.3.4. Building an actionable long term priority implementation framework

As mentioned, Bulgaria already has a comprehensive legal framework for co‑ordination on the Goals in place through Decree No. 52/2023. The challenge at this stage is therefore less about the absence of institutional arrangements and more about translating this framework into regular practices that support co‑ordination, prioritisation and coherence across government. Given the scale and complexity of aligning all sectors and institutions simultaneously, the government could adopt a phased implementation approach, starting with a limited number of cross-cutting priorities that reflect national strategic objectives.

The CoMA, together with the NSI and the Ministry of Finance, could initiate this process by focusing on one or two strategic policy areas, linked with policy priorities like the National Industrial Strategy, that involve multiple institutions. Such an approach would allow the CoG to test co‑ordination arrangements, clarify roles, and identify practical challenges in aligning policies and instruments across sectors. This would involve setting up working-level routines for reporting, reviewing progress, and facilitating dialogue between lead and partner institutions as designated in the decree. Over time, such routines could help normalise collaboration across ministries and support more coherent implementation of long-term priorities. It would also create a space to strengthen co‑ordination between planning, budgeting, and monitoring practices. A small co‑ordination function or dedicated team within the CoMA could help steer this process, convene institutions, and ensure continuity. Rather than duplicating line‑ministry responsibilities, such a function could focus on facilitation, synthesis, and follow‑up, supporting the CoG’s role in ensuring coherence across actions, including those related to the Goals.

To ensure broad engagement, academic institutions, business associations, and civil society organisations could be brought into the process. OECD experience suggests that structured stakeholder engagement can help identify policy interactions and implementation constraints, contributing to more coherent and realistic long-term policy goals. The objective is not to duplicate what already exists, but to activate the decree through sustained co‑ordination, clear institutional roles, and gradual expansion; while ensuring alignment with international practices and enabling meaningful participation from the private sector. This incremental approach is consistent with OECD findings that effective implementation often builds on existing institutions, progressively strengthening co‑ordination and coherence over time (OECD, 2019[5])

The example of Romania, presented in the box below, illustrates how placing the co‑ordination of a long-term priority at the centre of government can support policy coherence and sustained implementation across government, particularly when supported by political commitment and dedicated co‑ordination structures. While institutional contexts differ, several elements of this approach, such as clear mandates and structured interministerial networks, may offer relevant insights for Bulgaria.

Box ‎5.1. Co‑ordination of sustainable development in Romania

Since December 2016, Romania has placed its CoG, the General Secretariat of the government (GSG), at the front of the implementation of sustainable development goals, ensuring high-level political co‑ordination and coherence. Some features of Romania’s co‑ordination model are:

• High-level political commitment. The Romanian Government demonstrated sustained support for the implementation of sustainable development goals, with the GSG leading co‑ordination efforts CoG. Established within the GSG, the Department of Sustainable Development (DSD) oversees implementation, supports policy alignment, and engages with stakeholders.

• Romanian Sustainable Development Strategy 2030. This strategy sets national priorities, ensuring that policies across ministries align with the sustainable development goals. It introduces a monitoring system and aims to integrate sustainability principles into all policy areas.

• Interministerial co‑ordination network. The government has created an Interdepartmental Committee on Sustainable Development (ICSD) and Sustainable Development Hubs agents in all SDG-related sectoral ministries, to foster co‑ordination and knowledge sharing. Each ministry designates officials responsible for integrating sustainable development principles into sectoral strategies.

The National Institute for Statistics works alongside the GSG to track progress on related indicators.

Romania’s experience highlights the importance of strong political leadership at the CoG in driving the implementation of long-term priorities.

Source: OECD (2023[7]), Coherence and Co‑ordination at the Centre of Government in Romania, https://doi.org/10.1787/3feaa33e-en

Finland’s approach to structured cross-sectoral co‑ordination also offers useful insights. Without introducing new institutions, Finland has built a durable mechanism for aligning sectoral policies with shared sustainability goals through regular interministerial dialogue and structured engagement with stakeholders (see Box 4.3 in Chapter 4).

5.3.5. Practices, methodologies and tools to improve planning and co‑ordination of long-term priorities

Representatives at the CoG in Bulgaria are well-aware of the complexity and fragmentation of Bulgaria’s planning system, and the Draft Strategic Planning Law is a clear example of its commitment to addressing these challenges. However, as mentioned, the current draft has not been approved yet, and it does not appear to be a priority at this stage for the government. In this context, strengthening policy coherence for cross‑cutting agendas is likely to depend less on comprehensive legislative reform and more on the gradual adoption of practices that support co‑ordination, learning, and alignment across government.

Within this context, Bulgaria may benefit from adopting an incremental approach to improving strategic planning. Rather than waiting for comprehensive legislative reform, Bulgaria could focus on gradual cultural shifts and the incorporation of new planning practices that do not require major structural transformations. OECD experience on policy coherence suggests that such incremental adjustments can help build trust, clarify roles, and strengthen co‑ordination for complex and long-term agendas. Strengthening and incorporating new practices to inform planning, foster collaboration, strengthen monitoring, and improve the production and use of data and analytical systems could be initial steps toward a more effective planning system. These practices can support the CoG in moving from formal co‑ordination toward more substantive policy alignment across sectors.

However, it is important to acknowledge the challenges of co‑ordination and collaboration in the absence of an explicit legislative mandate. Without a clear legal foundation, ensuring sustained co‑operation across ministries can be difficult, and certain co‑ordination tools may face limitations in their implementation. This underscores the importance of political signalling from the top of government to line ministries, and leadership from the CoG to reinforce the relevance of long-term priorities in national planning, supporting alignment and coherence among sectoral priorities and ensuring institutional buy-in despite the lack of binding legal provisions.

By fostering small but meaningful changes Bulgaria can lay the groundwork for more ambitious reforms in the future while maintaining policy continuity and administrative stability.

5.3.6. Strengthening planning networks across government

The informal network of experts on strategic planning, despite its limitations in capacity and influence, represents an important step toward enhancing cross-government co‑ordination and ensuring greater policy coherence, offering a valuable space for exchange among planning officials. Such networks are increasingly used in OECD countries as low‑cost mechanisms to support coherence on cross‑cutting and long-term priorities. Building on this progress, the next steps could be to formalise the network’s role within government structures. Giving the network a clear technical advisory mandate would allow it to more systematically support the CoMA in identifying and addressing cross-cutting government priorities, including the integration of long-term priorities into strategic planning processes. This could help strengthen early‑stage co‑ordination and reduce fragmentation across sectoral initiatives.

With a formal mandate and structured calendar of activities, the network could serve as a platform for early co‑ordination on strategic initiatives, facilitate alignment across ministries, and improve the quality and coherence of policy planning. It could also provide a regular forum for surfacing implementation challenges, sharing good practices across institutions, and feeding lessons learned back into the planning cycle, supporting continuous improvement. Portugal’s REPLAN network offers a useful example of how an interministerial planning and foresight network can support co‑ordination and policy coherence on cross‑cutting priorities without replacing formal decision‑making structures (see Box 4.8 in Chapter 4).

5.3.7. Leveraging tools to enhance strategy-setting, co‑ordination, and data‑informed policymaking

Bulgaria could benefit from adopting more structured planning and collaboration practices that enhance policy coherence and long-term governance without requiring major institutional reforms. Such practices can help surface policy interlinkages, anticipate trade‑offs, and support more integrated decision‑making across government. By incorporating methodologies that encourage anticipatory policymaking, cross-sectoral dialogue, and iterative policy adjustments, Bulgaria can better respond to emerging challenges while maintaining strategic consistency towards implementation of long-term priorities.

One specific methodology that does not require large investments in terms of regulations, financial resources, or human resources is strategic foresight. Bulgaria’s CoG could leverage strategic foresight as a method to inform future vision, strategic directions, and policymaking. Foresight can support policy coherence by encouraging cross‑sectoral dialogue on long‑term trends and by helping governments consider the cumulative effects of policy choices. This approach enhances long-term planning by enabling policymakers to systematically anticipate and prepare for potential future scenarios. It also fosters cross-sectoral discussions on trade‑offs and policy choices, strengthening co‑ordination across government and coherence in national priorities. Moreover, foresight promotes a data‑informed policymaking culture, as it relies on data, trend analysis, and empirical research to build robust future scenarios. By incorporating foresight methodologies into policy development, Bulgaria could enhance resilience, improve adaptability to emerging challenges, and foster a proactive governance model (OECD, 2025[8]).

Bulgaria could progressively integrate strategic foresight into its governance system. Rather than requiring major structural reforms, foresight can be incorporated through targeted initiatives that complement existing planning processes. This may include pilot exercises linked to priority strategies, targeted training for officials, and light co‑ordination arrangements within the CoG. Establishing a foresight unit within the SDCC or another CoG unit, embedding scenario planning in national strategies, and training policymakers in foresight methodologies would allow Bulgaria to develop a more anticipatory and resilient governance model.

Many countries have implemented strategic foresight as a tool to enhance long-term policymaking, improve adaptability, and strengthen governance. Countries such as Ireland, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, and Singapore have developed institutional foresight mechanisms to systematically anticipate future challenges, integrate scenario planning into decision making, and foster a culture of anticipatory governance. The following box presents the cases of Singapore and Spain (Box 5.2).

Box ‎5.2. Strategic foresight in national planning in Singapore and Spain

Singapore

The Singaporean Civil Service College (CSC) is a statutory board under the public service division of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The CSC is the learning and development arm of the public service. One of the missions of the CSC is to equip Singapore’s public service to be future-ready. The Learning Futures Group is a business support unit and team in the CSC that helps develop futures capability and capacity.

Building futures capability is a collaborative effort between the CSC Learning Futures Group and the Centre for Strategic Futures (CSF), which has the mandate to produce and disseminate foresight work from a whole-of-government perspective. While the CSC does not directly build foresight capability, it works closely with CSF to complement its existing work in this area and provide public and civil servants with innovative foresight abilities, such as the use of gaming and simulations for policy development. One of the key initiatives of the Learning Futures Group is the Social Policy 101 programme, which not only examines current issues but also explores their future implications for policymakers. They emphasise through the Social Policy 101 programme the need for futures thinking in policymaking and the importance of building capability through gaming, simulations and role playing, as a means not only to explore issues but also their future implications.

Spain

Spain has institutionalised strategic foresight through the National Office of Foresight and Strategy, established in 2020 under the Cabinet of the Presidency. The office applies foresight methodologies such as scenario planning and megatrend analysis to assess long-term challenges and inform policy decisions. One of its key initiatives, Spain 2050, explores future trends in areas like demographics, and technology to support data and analysis-based policymaking. By using quantitative modelling and expert collaboration, it provides insights to help shape Spain’s long-term strategic priorities.

Sources: OECD (2025[9]), Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government: Lessons from Lithuania, Italy, and Malta https://doi.org/10.1787/d7eb0bb6-en; Government of Spain, National Office of Foresight and Strategy (n.d.[10]), Spain 2050 – Strategic Foresight Initiative, https://futuros.gob.es/en

To ensure foresight efforts are directly relevant to national priorities, Bulgaria could begin with pilot foresight exercises focused on the three key challenges identified in the NDP 2030:

• Accelerated economic development: conduct foresight analysis on digital transformation and the future of work to anticipate skills demands, the impact of automation, and opportunities for innovation-driven growth.

• Demographic upswing: use foresight methodologies to explore future demographic scenarios, including migration trends, aging population challenges, and the long-term sustainability of social services.

• Reduction of inequalities: apply foresight to assess regional development trajectories, identifying strategies to reduce urban-rural disparities and improve access to public services.

By focusing on national priorities such as these, Bulgaria can ensure that foresight is policy-relevant, actionable, and progressively integrated into strategic decision making. Such exercises could also help clarify how progress on one objective may affect others, supporting more coherent implementation of long-term priorities. Initial efforts should emphasise practical applications, such as stress-testing policies against different future scenarios and facilitating cross-ministerial dialogues on long-term policy choices.

Moreover, Bulgaria could strengthen institutional capacity by developing targeted training programmes and collaborative activities on the Sustainable Development Goals. Establishing policy labs, hosted at the SDCC with key ministries, could serve as a testing ground to develop some innovative approaches, allowing officials to experiment with new policy solutions, assess feasibility and coherence before scaling them up. These labs could facilitate cross-sectoral collaboration, ensuring integration of this long-term priority is not siloed within individual ministries but embedded across government planning processes.

5.3.8. Developing integrated indicators into the planning system

The increasing complexity of policymaking and the sustained pressure to deliver measurable policy results have led to CoGs taking on a larger role in monitoring efforts. According to the OECD, 19 out of 26 CoGs identify whole‑of-government performance monitoring as a top or significant priority function, highlighting the growing expectation that the centre not only sets strategic priorities but also ensures their implementation and impact are systematically tracked (OECD, 2024[6]). The role of the CoG in monitoring extends beyond data collection, as it is responsible for ensuring that indicators are meaningful, aligned with strategic priorities, and used to inform decision making rather than remaining a passive reporting tool.

Indicators are used by governments to foster alignment and co‑ordination on long-term priorities. They provide a common framework for measuring progress, help ensure policy coherence, and facilitate data-driven decision making across ministries and agencies. Well-defined indicators also support monitoring and evaluation, enabling governments to track implementation, identify gaps, and adjust policies accordingly.

In Bulgaria, while some ministries have proactively integrated sustainable development into their policies and indicators, others have engaged only minimally, resulting in inconsistencies across sectors. Within the current administrative culture, without a centralised enforcement mechanism, ministries tend to prioritise their own sectoral objectives, leading to fragmented implementation. As a result, related initiatives vary in focus and commitment, depending on individual ministerial priorities rather than a co‑ordinated national strategy.

The National List of Indicators is Bulgaria’s official framework for tracking progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. It was established to provide a standardised system for measuring policy outcomes and evaluating strategic implementation. The NSI is responsible for compiling, maintaining, and updating the list, while individual ministries and agencies submit data annually in accordance with reporting obligations (Republic of Bulgaria, 2023[11]).

The list includes indicators sourced from the United Nations Statistical Commission, Eurostat, the OECD, and European Commission Directorates-General (DGs), ensuring alignment with international reporting standards. The goal is to create a centralised, structured approach to tracking progress toward Bulgaria’s national and international commitments, facilitating data and analysis-based policymaking and performance assessment.

However, despite its role as a critical monitoring tool, the implementation of the National List of Indicators faces several challenges. One of the main deficiencies in Bulgaria’s monitoring framework in this area is the absence of a standardised methodology for setting targets, leading to inconsistent ambition levels and unreliable benchmarks. Ministries adopt varying approaches, with some relying solely on EU averages, while others fail to define measurable goals altogether, making it difficult to track national progress. Additionally, the lack of structured processes requiring ministries to use data systematically in policy development further weakens the role of indicators in data-based governance. Several key stakeholders identified the following challenges:

• Lack of defined target values for many indicators, limiting the ability to measure policy effectiveness.

• Limited use of indicators in decision making, as ministries primarily use them for reporting obligations rather than guiding resource allocation and policy reforms.

• Weak municipal-level data collection, making it difficult to assess regional disparities in sustainable development indicators

5.3.9. Establishing clear targets for long term priorities

Clear and measurable targets are essential to ensuring that government objectives translate into concrete policy action and can be effectively tracked. However, without a central mechanism to enforce consistency and alignment across ministries, targets risk being fragmented or set without clear benchmarks. According to the OECD (2024[6]), 54% of CoGs ensure compliance with baseline or target indicators, while 69% communicate specific government targets that must be delivered. Given its role, the CoG is a natural focal point for co‑ordinating crosscutting target setting on policy priorities, ensuring they are not only defined but also that they reflect the political ambitions of the government.

Bulgaria primarily derives its targets from EU-wide frameworks, ensuring coherence with regional commitments. However, this approach presents challenges: in some cases, EU’s average benchmarks are too ambitious given Bulgaria’s starting position, while in others, they are not ambitious enough to drive meaningful progress. A more tailored approach to benchmarking would allow for a more accurate and strategic adaptation of targets to national circumstances.

The CoG could consider fostering the implementation of the OECD Distance to Targets methodology to set targets in a structured manner and following international standards. This approach would help define realistic, measurable, and internationally comparable targets while considering Bulgaria’s national context.

Box ‎5.3. OECD Distance to Targets methodology

The OECD Distance to Targets methodology is a quantitative approach that measures how far a country is from achieving each specific national target by comparing its current performance against predefined benchmarks. Unlike basic progress tracking, this methodology prioritises policy efforts by ranking related targets based on their level of achievement and urgency for action.

It follows four key steps. First, a benchmark is established for each target, using either the official target, international agreements, or high-performing countries as reference points. Second, the current status of indicators is assessed, and the “distance” to the benchmark is calculated. Third, targets are ranked based on how far they are from full achievement, helping policymakers focus on areas needing the most effort. Finally, changes are monitored over time to track whether Bulgaria is closing gaps or falling behind. This methodology helps governments avoid blind spots in implementation. Instead of treating all targets equally, it highlights where urgent interventions are needed.

Slovenia applied this methodology in its National Development Strategy 2030 to set measurable targets. The country followed a structured process, using official targets where available, supplementing with other international agreements when nationally determined and specific targets were unclear, applying expert judgment to adjust targets based on national realities, and normalising values for comparability across policy fields. This enabled Slovenia to balance global commitments with national priorities.

Source: OECD (2022[12]), The Short and Winding Road to 2030: Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets, https://doi.org/10.1787/af4b630d-en.

For the benchmarking process, Bulgaria could adopt a dual benchmarking approach, which would provide greater flexibility by allowing ministries to:

• Use the EU average as a baseline for defining minimum target values, ensuring that Bulgaria remains aligned with European commitments while acknowledging national constraints.

• Apply OECD averages or high-income country benchmarks in sectors where Bulgaria meets or exceeds EU targets, enabling the government to set more ambitious and internationally competitive goals.

This method would maintain regional alignment while allowing Bulgaria to tailor its targets to national conditions, ensuring a realistic yet progressive approach to sustainable development.

5.3.10. Strengthening the monitoring of long-term priorities

Monitorstat Information System, Bulgaria’s national centralised monitoring platform, has the potential to play a central role for the CoG in linking long-term priorities, planning, and policy outcomes. Developed under the Operational Program “Good Governance” (OPGG) 2014-2020 and launched in December 2019, the system was designed as a centralised, web-based platform to support the monitoring of European and national strategies. As of 2025, Bulgarian authorities are upgrading the platform under a project financed by the EU’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The NSI, in co‑operation with the CoMA, is leading the implementation. The objective is to transform the Monitorstat Information System into an integrated tool for strategic planning, performance monitoring, and reporting on national strategic documents (National Statistical Institute, n.d.[13]).

This is a relevant initiative, as its current underutilisation limits its effectiveness as a tool for policy monitoring, evaluation and decision making. Ministries are not required to submit performance data regularly, leading to fragmented tracking, outdated strategies, and inconsistent reporting across government institutions. In this regard, the Monitorstat Information System serves primarily as a repository for strategic documents. Over 200 strategic documents exist, yet only a small number are uploaded or regularly updated in the platform, reinforcing concerns about weak co‑ordination and accountability in strategic planning.

While most global, EU, and national indicators are included in Monitorstat, progress has not been systematically updated for most indicators as of 2022, with only a few exceptions. Additionally, no targets have been defined for any of the indicators, which undermines the system’s potential for tracking progress and informing policy adjustments. The ongoing upgrade is expected to address some of these limitations by enhancing functionalities and introducing tools to better align internationally recognised indicators useful for benchmarking targets, and reporting mechanisms with strategic priorities.

Given that Monitorstat is currently undergoing an upgrade, it is essential that this process results in a platform that is regularly maintained and fully integrated into planning and monitoring cycles. The successful implementation of the ongoing project could significantly enhance the system’s relevance for data and analysis-based decision making and long-term priority tracking. Ireland’s SDG GeoHive represents an interesting example of how such platforms can be used effectively to monitor sustainable development progress.

Box ‎5.4. SDG GeoHive: A centralised data hub for sustainable development in Ireland

The SDG GeoHive is Ireland’s public platform for accessing data related to the SDGs. The Central Statistics Office (CSO) developed the platform in collaboration with Ordnance Survey Ireland (OSI), using geospatial technology provided by Esri Ireland.

The platform supports the monitoring and presentation of Ireland’s progress on the goals using a set of indicators based on UN and EU frameworks. It includes data at multiple geographic levels, including NUTS3, county, and census local areas. The CSO is responsible for identifying, managing, and presenting national indicator data, and the Department of Communication, Climate Action and Environment oversees Ireland’s official reporting on implementation.

The SDG GeoHive allows users to search for, view, and download indicator data in various formats. It also provides additional resources such as maps and visual materials to support data interpretation.

The platform is part of Ireland’s whole‑of-government approach to the implementation of the Goals, as outlined in the National Implementation Plans. Data sourcing is ongoing, with indicator coverage currently at approximately 80%. The SDG GeoHive is intended to be used by a range of actors, including public authorities, researchers, and other stakeholders.

Source: Government of Ireland (n.d.[14]), Ireland’s SDG GeoHive, Sustainable Development Goals Data Hub, https://irelandsdg.geohive.ie

5.3.11. Strengthening alignment of long-term priorities through the budget

Effective integration of budgeting and long-term planning requires strong co‑ordination between the CoG and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to ensure that fiscal decisions align with strategic priorities. Budgeting is a critical instrument for translating cross‑cutting objectives into concrete policy choices and resource allocations. The CoG plays a key role in bridging policy objectives with budget allocations, ensuring that financial planning reflects government commitments rather than historical expenditure patterns. OECD findings show that CoGs can strengthen this alignment by co‑ordinating with budget authorities, setting clear spending priorities, and ensuring programme budgeting supports national development goals (OECD, 2024[15]).

Program budgeting plays a critical role by ensuring that financial resources are allocated based on policy priorities rather than historical spending patterns. When effectively implemented, programme budgeting can support policy coherence by clarifying how sectoral programmes contribute to shared objectives and by facilitating trade‑offs between competing priorities. By linking budget allocations to measurable development outcomes, programme budgeting improves policy coherence and strengthens the government’s ability to track progress toward long-term goals.

The Medium-Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF) serves as Bulgaria’s primary fiscal planning instrument, setting multi-year expenditure ceilings and defining fiscal policy priorities (OECD, 2022[3]). While the MTBF promotes fiscal discipline, its effectiveness in ensuring strategic coherence remains limited. In particular, the MTBF is not systematically used to prioritise or sequence expenditures in line with long‑term objectives such as those articulated in Bulgaria 2030. Stakeholders highlighted that ministries prepare budgets based on historical spending rather than policy impact assessments, with no formal requirement to systematically link budget allocations to Bulgaria 2030 or targets related to the sustainable development goals.

Although programme budgeting was introduced to connect financial allocations with policy objectives, its implementation remains inconsistent. Ministries often regard programme budgeting as a procedural obligation rather than an analytical tool to improve expenditure efficiency. This limits its potential to support coherence across policy areas and to inform decisions on reallocating resources toward cross‑cutting priorities. Additionally, expenditure ceilings under the MTBF do not necessarily align with the financial needs of national development priorities, creating a disconnect between fiscal planning and policy execution.

Moreover, as analysed in the last section of this paper, at the municipal level, local governments face challenges in aligning their financial planning with national priorities due to unclear guidelines and insufficient funding for initiatives related to sustainable development. This further weakens vertical policy coherence between national commitments and local implementation.

5.3.12. Strengthening policy coherence through spending reviews

Spending reviews are a key tool for improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and alignment of public expenditure with national priorities. They also provide an opportunity to assess whether spending across policy areas is coherent with long‑term objectives and to identify potential reallocations or synergies. Spending reviews are widely used in OECD countries, and they have become a core instrument for expenditure prioritisation and reallocation and a permanent feature of the budget process in many countries, contributing to the sustainability of public finances (OECD, 2022[3]). In this context, CoGs can ensure that spending reviews align with national priorities, including cross-sectoral goals. While the Ministry of Finance leads on fiscal analysis, the CoG contributes by selecting review areas, ensuring policy relevance, and integrating findings into strategic planning.

Currently, Bulgaria lacks a systematic approach to spending reviews, relying instead on some ad hoc evaluations. This limits the government’s ability to use spending reviews as a regular instrument for aligning expenditures with strategic priorities and for strengthening policy coherence. While the Ministry of Finance has conducted pilot spending reviews with the World Bank, these have not been institutionalised as a standard practice nor there is sufficient alignment with the CoG in the selection or review areas. Stakeholders emphasised that making spending reviews a mandatory component of the budget cycle would help identify inefficiencies, reallocate resources more strategically, and improve the overall effectiveness of government spending and therefore, of financing long-term priorities.

To advance in this direction, the CoG could work with the Ministry of Finance to adopt a structured framework for spending reviews aligned with the government’s strategic policy priorities. In this context, the CoG’s contribution would primarily relate to ensuring policy coherence and relevance, while the Ministry of Finance would retain responsibility for fiscal analysis. This would ensure that reviews are conducted regularly, linked to policy objectives, and used as a basis for budgetary decisions. The Netherlands provides a useful example of a well-integrated spending review process, demonstrating how co‑ordination between the CoG and the Ministry of Finance can produce structured evaluations that enhance fiscal transparency and policy coherence (see Box 5.5).

Box ‎5.5. Spending reviews in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, spending reviews are an integral part of government formation following general elections. The coalition agreement, which outlines the priorities of the incoming administration, typically includes a commitment to conducting spending reviews over the government’s four-year term. While the coalition agreement is politically binding, it does not carry legal authority through parliament; rather, it serves as a guiding instrument for the executive branch.

Political leadership plays a crucial role in shaping the spending review process, with key stages including:

Selection of Review Areas: The Cabinet identifies key policy areas or government programmes for review, aligning them with the administration’s priorities.

Approval of Review Framework: The Cabinet defines the terms of reference for each review and includes them in the Budget Memorandum, ensuring transparency and consistency in methodology.

Decision-Making on Recommendations: Once the review is completed, the Cabinet evaluates the findings and determines which recommendations to implement.

The Ministry of Finance oversees the process, co‑ordinating a non-political working group that conducts the analysis. The findings of the review, along with the Cabinet’s final decisions, are publicly released, ensuring transparency and accountability in the fiscal decision-making process.

Source: OECD (2024[16]), Spending Reviews: Lessons from the Netherlands, https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2023/03/spending-reviews-lessons-from-the-netherlands.

5.3.13. Localising national long-term priorities

Localising national long-term priorities is crucial to ensuring that national sustainability commitments translate into tangible improvements at the municipal level. In Bulgaria, municipalities are at the forefront of delivering public services that directly impact the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Effective localisation depends on the alignment of national priorities, local capacities, and financing mechanisms across levels of government. However, the effectiveness of these efforts depends on their ability to focus on sustainable development issues and systematically track, report, and align local progress with national targets.

Bridging the gap between national priorities and local implementation requires stronger co‑ordination between central and municipal governments. Strengthening data collection, co‑ordination mechanisms, and municipal engagement in the governance of long-term priorities is essential to bridging the gap between national strategies and local implementation. Weak localisation often reflects gaps in multi‑level governance arrangements rather than a lack of commitment at the local level. As highlighted in Bulgaria’s second Voluntary National Review, many of the obstacles to achieving the Goals could be addressed more effectively through stronger local policies and action at the territorial level. This reinforces the importance of multi‑level governance mechanisms for ensuring coherence between national commitments and local implementation. The VNR emphasises the importance of building robust multi-level governance mechanisms and points to Bulgaria’s intent to strengthen regional development efforts, align territorial policies with national sustainable development priorities, and enhance co‑ordination between central and local authorities (Republic of Bulgaria, 2025[17]).

In this regard, in unitary countries such as Bulgaria, the CoG can help promote local administrations in systematically tracking progress, aligning their efforts with national priorities, and contributing meaningfully to reporting on long-term priority goals. In doing so, the CoG can play a facilitating role in strengthening vertical policy coherence, without encroaching on municipal autonomy. A more structured approach – co‑ordinated by the CoG, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, and the National Statistical Institute (NSI) – could improve communication, data collection, integration into national reporting, and policy coherence. Norway’s experience illustrates how structured and sustained dialogue between central and local governments can strengthen policy coherence across levels of government (Box 5.6).

Box ‎5.6. Localising long-term priorities in Norway

Norway’s approach to localising sustainable development goals is anchored in a well-established multilevel governance framework, co‑ordinated by the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS). For over two decades, Norway has conducted formal, structured consultations between the central government and local/regional authorities three times a year. This institutionalised dialogue has promoted trust, stable financing, and policy coherence, while limiting the need for top-down regulation and supporting significant local discretion.

This sustained co‑operation and strong political commitment led to the publication of Norway’s first Voluntary Subnational Review (VSR) in 2021. The VSR documents the contributions, progress, and challenges of local and regional governments in implementing the goals, systematically integrating their perspectives into national reporting and reinforcing Norway’s whole‑of-government approach to sustainable development.

Sources: KS & Nordregio (2021[18]), Localising the Sustainable Development Goals in Europe: Perspectives for the north, https://www.ks.no/contentassets/72ade1e76c514378a755f2e38762c8a1/KSReportSDGFinal.pdf; KS (2021[19]), Voluntary Subnational Review – Norway: Implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in Norwegian Local and Regional Government, https://gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/norway_2021.pdf

5.3.14. Strengthening data collection at the local level

One of the primary challenges in localising long-term priorities on sustainable development in Bulgaria is the lack of structured municipal-level data collection and monitoring. This limits the ability of the CoG to assess how national priorities are reflected in local outcomes and to identify regional disparities. While municipalities play a key role in implementing sustainability policies, there is no systematic approach to tracking their contributions, making it difficult to assess local progress against national targets. The absence of a common framework for collecting and reporting municipal-level data on sustainable development has resulted in inconsistencies, with data often aggregated at the national level and failing to reflect specific municipal efforts.

Many municipalities lack mechanisms to document and report on their sustainable development-related activities, limiting their ability to contribute meaningfully to national planning. This reflects the absence of a common reporting framework and clear guidance, rather than a lack of local initiatives. While some cities, such as Sofia, have developed reports on the goal on Sustainable Cities and Communities, these initiatives remain uncoordinated and are not systematically integrated into national reporting structures. A major concern raised by stakeholders during the research for this chapter was that municipalities have no legal obligation to track or report progress in this area, leading to fragmented and inconsistent data collection.

The National Association of Municipalities in the Republic of Bulgaria (NAMRB) plays an essential role in representing Bulgaria’s 265 municipalities, facilitating their participation in governance discussions. The National Association is not a government body, but it acts de facto as one. However, its involvement in sustainable development monitoring remains primarily consultative rather than operational, limiting its ability to support systematic vertical co‑ordination. While NAMRB takes part in related working groups on water management goals and sustainable cities goals, these forums mainly serve as platforms for exchanging good practices rather than formalised data collection mechanisms. A key issue raised by stakeholders during research for this chapter was the limited capacity of municipalities to contribute effectively to Bulgaria’s Second Voluntary National Review (VNR) due to time constraints and the absence of structured reporting tools. Some suggested that a baseline study on municipal contributions to sustainable development goals could improve the quality of local data and strengthen their role in future national reviews.

A more structured collaboration between the CoG, the NAMRB, the National Statistical Institute (NSI), and the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works was identified as a necessary step to developing municipal-level indicators on sustainable development. Such collaboration could help align local data collection with national monitoring needs, supporting more coherent reporting and decision‑making. Integrating these indicators into Monitorstat Information System, Bulgaria’s national monitoring platform, could ensure more systematic tracking of local sustainability efforts while minimising administrative burdens for municipalities. Another relevant example from Norway is the KOSTRA system. This provides an example of how municipalities can systematically report financial and service provision data, facilitating transparency, accountability, and more data-driven local governance (Box 5.7).

Box ‎5.7. Digitalisation reform in Italy, and municipal reporting in Norway

Italy

Led by the Department of Public Administration within the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and funded through Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), the “Digitalisation of SUAP and SUE Procedures” project covers Italy's more than 5 000 municipal one-stop shops for business activities (SUAP) and construction (SUE). It aims to replace fragmented exchanges of PDF documents via certified email with machine-to-machine data sharing through a central national hub, standardising procedures, communication protocols, and shared databases across national, regional, and local levels. Progress is monitored through binding milestones under the Plan and joint oversight by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. Though still underway, the project shows how the COG can support large-scale digital infrastructure reform, and improve data quality, transparency, and processing times, while aiming to address uneven technical capacity across local administrations.

Norway

KOSTRA (Local Governments-State‑Reporting) is Norway’s national information system for tracking municipal and county government resource use. The system is based on consecutive data records and annual reports submitted by local authorities to Statistics Norway, containing detailed financial data and service provision metrics. These data are combined with demographic figures to generate key indicators on priorities, coverage rates, and the efficiency of public services. The indicators are published online, enabling municipalities to compare resource use, expenditures, and service outcomes with similar peers. By providing a comprehensive and transparent benchmarking tool, KOSTRA supports data-driven decision making, accountability, and strategic resource planning. This system helps local governments identify areas for efficiency improvements and ensures that public resources are used effectively to enhance service delivery.

Sources: Norwegian Government (n.d.[20]), KOSTRA – Municipality-State Reporting, Government of Norway, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/kommuner-og-regioner/municipal-economy/kostra-municipality--state-reporting/id1233/; Government of Italy (2021[21]), National Recovery and Resilience Plan, https://www.italiadomani.gov.it/en/strumenti/documenti/archivio-documenti/national-recovery-and-reslieince-plan.html.

5.3.15. Enhancing Policy and Financial Incentives for Local Implementation

Despite their responsibility for implementing sustainability policies, municipalities lack a structured role in co‑ordination and decision making around sustainable development. This limits the alignment of local initiatives with national priorities and reduces opportunities for feedback between levels of government. NAMRB serves as the main representative body for local governments but does not have a formalised role in implementation. Municipalities have little to no influence on the national sustainable development strategy, further limiting their ability to align local actions with broader sustainability goals.

Frequent changes in government structures have contributed to uncertainty in municipal planning, complicating long-term sustainability strategies. Such uncertainty can weaken the coherence in their implementation, particularly for investments requiring long planning horizons. Decentralisation efforts have stalled since 2021, limiting municipalities’ ability to develop independent sustainability strategies and secure dedicated resources.

Municipalities in Bulgaria remain heavily dependent on central government transfers, which account for approximately 70% of municipal revenue. This dependency underscores the importance of aligning national funding frameworks with local responsibilities related to long-term priorities to ensure coherent implementation. Stakeholders highlighted the need for increased funding for areas such as infrastructure and sustainability projects as municipal budgets often prioritise immediate service needs over long-term sustainability initiatives. While the EU programming period 2021-2027 includes funding for sustainable development, there are no legal requirements for municipalities to track sustainable development-related financial commitments, making it difficult to assess whether resources are effectively allocated toward sustainability goals.

A key challenge is the lack of awareness and guidance for municipalities on long-term priority planning and implementation. More systematic communication from the CoG and relevant ministries could help clarify expectations, priorities, and available support mechanisms, strengthening alignment across levels of government. There has been no active campaign from the central government to promote the benefits of adopting a sustainable development approach, whether in terms of communication, financial incentives, or technical support for local actors. In this regard, the CoG and Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works can also act as channels for communicating national sustainable development priorities to municipalities. The Voluntary National Review (VNR) process offers an opportunity to engage local administrations, highlight best practices, and promote more consistent implementation. By leveraging the VNR as a platform for dialogue and knowledge‑sharing, the CoG can strengthen local awareness of sustainable development commitments, support capacity-building efforts, and facilitate better co‑ordination between central and local governments.

Knowledge sharing is another challenge that impacts on the effectiveness of local inputs into long-term priorities. Municipalities lack a dedicated platform to communicate their sustainable development-related challenges, goals, and initiatives, which restricts collaboration. Some stakeholders emphasised that municipalities would benefit from greater access to structured platforms to exchange best practices and financing models for sustainability projects. Additionally, impact assessments at the municipal level remain largely absent, making it difficult to evaluate policy effectiveness.

Some discussions highlighted the potential benefits of tools that could allow municipalities to track sustainability-related expenditures more systematically. Other opportunities include performance‑based municipal grants, which could incentivise municipalities to demonstrate measurable progress in implementation of sustainable development. Additionally, aligning related municipal strategies with EU funding opportunities – particularly in areas such as environmental resilience, infrastructure, and urban sustainability – could enhance financial support for local sustainability initiatives.

As mentioned, a more structured approach is needed to enhance municipal engagement in implementation of sustainable development goals. Given the diversity of municipal capacities across Bulgaria, a one‑size‑fits-all approach may not be effective. Instead, a differentiated strategy that combines capacity building, knowledge sharing, and targeted financial incentives could help municipalities integrate sustainable development more effectively into local planning and budgeting. Portugal’s experience illustrates how structured collaboration, technical support, and digital tools can facilitate integration of long-term priorities at the municipal level, offering potential insights for strengthening localisation efforts.

Box ‎5.8. Municipal commitments to the 2030 Agenda in Portugal

Portugal has been actively localising the 2030 Agenda by integrating sustainable development goals into municipal governance. The National Association of Portuguese Municipalities (ANMP) has created a section of Municipalities for the SDGs, now with 79 member municipalities, demonstrating a strong institutional commitment. Many municipalities have incorporated the goals into strategic planning, budgeting, and decision-making processes, ensuring that local policies align with national and global sustainability objectives.

To strengthen implementation of the goals, several municipalities have established dedicated technical teams. Awareness-raising efforts include public events, communication campaigns, and engagement with local stakeholders to foster broader participation. Additionally, municipalities are leveraging digital platforms like ODSLocal, which enables real-time tracking of progress, and the Municipal Sustainability Index (CESOP-Local), which provides data-driven insights to measure sustainability at the municipal level.

Portuguese municipalities are also engaging in international sustainability networks, such as the UN Habitat SDG Cities Programme, reinforcing their commitment to sustainable urban development. By embedding the goals into governance, policy planning, and community initiatives, local authorities in Portugal are playing a crucial role in accelerating the national transition towards sustainable development.

Source: Government of Portugal (2023[22]), 2023 Voluntary National Review, https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/vnrs/2023/Portugal_VNR_Report.pdf

To address these challenges, Bulgaria could consider the following measures, which aim to strengthen vertical policy coherence by improving co‑ordination, data flows, and alignment between national priorities and local implementation capacities:

• Develop targeted training programmes for municipal officials, focusing on integrating sustainability into municipal planning, financial management, and service delivery. The NAMRB could play a leading role in organising these activities under the leadership of the CoG, and in collaboration with the NSI and the Ministry of Finance.

• Advance disaggregated data collection on sustainable development: the National Statistical Institute, in collaboration with NAMRB and line ministries, could progressively expand the collection of disaggregated data at the municipal level, ensuring that indicators reflect regional disparities. This could include incorporating subnational sustainable development data into the Monitorstat Information System, allowing for more granular analysis of progress across different municipalities.

• Conducting a baseline study on sustainable development governance at the subnational level. To better understand how municipalities currently integrate long-term sustainable development policies into their governance and planning frameworks, the government could launch a baseline study assessing municipal-level practices in this area. This study could map existing local sustainability initiatives, identify capacity gaps, and highlight opportunities for better co‑ordination between municipalities and central government institutions.

• Establish a structured platform for municipalities to exchange best practices, discuss implementation challenges, and share data on progress. This could take the form of a digital knowledge hub or regular regional forums where municipalities showcase innovative sustainability initiatives, particularly those linked to EU funding opportunities.

• Strengthen the link between local initiatives and EU financing instruments. Municipalities could receive technical assistance in preparing project proposals that align with EU sustainability priorities, particularly in areas including in infrastructure, and urban development.

By adopting these measures, Bulgaria could create a more structured and effective approach to localising sustainable development goals, ensuring that municipalities play an active role in achieving national and international sustainability objectives.

5.4. Options for further exploration

This section outlines a set of options for further exploration that could support the CoG in strengthening its capacity to steer cross‑cutting and long‑term priorities. They are complemented by the repository of tools (online Annex) with country examples.

5.4.1. Strengthening the CoG capabilities to steer cross-cutting long-term goals

Strengthen the CoMA capacity to steer implementation by operationalising Decree No. 52/2023 through a phased and structured approach, aligned with the country’s strategic priorities. This could allow the CoG to progressively move from a formal allocation of responsibilities toward a more functional co‑ordination architecture that supports policy coherence across sectors. This includes:

1. Moving beyond the formal assignment of responsibilities to establish a functional co‑ordination architecture that enables the integration of sustainable development into policy design, planning, and budgeting. Such an approach could help ensure that the long-term priorities are used as a shared reference point for aligning sectoral objectives and managing interactions between policy areas. The sustainable development goal framework should be used to support more integrated policymaking, developing shared goals across ministries and aligning long-term objectives with sectoral interventions.

2. Starting implementation with one or two priority areas, using them to align policy goals and initiatives, define joint indicators, and develop shared monitoring routines across institutions. This could provide an opportunity to test co‑ordination arrangements, identify bottlenecks, and refine practices before broader application.

3. Establishing a small co‑ordination unit within CoMA to support lead and partner institutions, align sustainable development monitoring with national planning cycles, and facilitate regular interministerial dialogue. Such a unit could focus on facilitation, synthesis, and continuity, rather than duplicating sectoral responsibilities. The unit should work closely with designated counterparts in the NSI and the Ministry of Finance to ensure methodological consistency, connect selected indicators to the budget process, and prepare periodic synthesis notes to inform strategic decisions.

4. Formalising the network of experts on strategic planning with a clear technical advisory mandate to support CoMA in identifying and addressing cross-cutting government priorities. This could strengthen early co‑ordination and contribute to more coherent integration of long-term priorities into sectoral strategies. The network should serve as a platform for early co‑ordination on strategic initiatives, support sustainable development integration, and facilitate dialogue across ministries on planning, implementation, and monitoring. To ensure relevance, it should be embedded into the policy cycle and operate on the basis of a structured annual work plan aligned with CoMA’s strategic agenda.

5.4.2. Establish practices, methodologies and tools at the CoG level to improve planning and co‑ordination

1. Foster awareness and collaboration on long-term priorities at the CoG and beyond. Develop collaborative activities on sustainable development, such as forums, seminars and relevant policy labs with key ministries a testing ground to develop some innovative approaches. These activities could support shared understanding of cross‑sectoral interlinkages and contribute to more coherent approaches to policymaking on sustainable development.

2. Institutionalise foresight methodologies. Hosted by the CoMA, pilot strategic foresight exercises on key national priorities such as economic development, demographics, and regional inequalities, with a view to informing strategic discussions and supporting more coherent long‑term decision‑making.

3. Define targets by adopting the OECD Distance to Targets methodology, using international benchmarking, ensuring that they respond to the country’s policy priorities and political objectives. This could support more transparent prioritisation and help align national ambition with Bulgaria’s specific context, while maintaining consistency with international frameworks.

5.4.3. Foster a better integration of key initiatives and long-term priorities into budgeting

1. Develop a pragmatic system for tracking expenditures, linking financial allocations to sustainability objectives. Such a system could support analysis of how spending patterns align with strategic priorities and inform discussions on policy coherence at the CoG level. Work with the Ministry of Finance to introduce tools to inform budget allocation at the CoMA level on policy priorities. The CoG can support the definition of priority spending areas, facilitate co‑ordination among ministries, and ensure that these tools contribute to strategic planning rather than remaining a purely technical exercise.

2. Institutionalise spending reviews. Establish a structured process for regular spending reviews, with the CoG ensuring that sustainable development-related public expenditures are systematically assessed for efficiency and effectiveness. The CoG should work with the Ministry of Finance to align spending reviews with national policy priorities, integrating findings into strategic decision making and facilitating cross-sectoral co‑ordination to enhance the impact of budgetary planning on sustainability objectives.

5.4.4. Promote the Localisation of long-term national priorities

Bulgaria could consider the following measures which aim to strengthen vertical policy coherence by improving co‑ordination, data flows, and alignment between national priorities and local implementation capacities:

1. Develop a differentiated approach to municipal integration of sustainable development. Work with the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works and the NAMRB to strengthen municipal capacity-building initiatives, create knowledge‑sharing platforms, and provide tailored financial incentives to support local implementation of sustainable development goals. This could help align national priorities with diverse local capacities, supporting vertical policy coherence.

2. Develop targeted training programmes for municipal officials, focusing on integrating sustainability into municipal planning, financial management, and service delivery. The NAMRB could play a leading role in organising these activities under the leadership of the CoG, and in collaboration with the National Statistics Institute (NSI) and the Ministry of Finance.

3. Advance disaggregated data collection: NSI in collaboration with NAMRB and line ministries, could progressively expand the collection of disaggregated data at the municipal level, ensuring that indicators on sustainable development reflect regional disparities. This could include incorporating subnational data into Monitorstat Information System, allowing for more granular analysis of progress across different municipalities.

4. Conducting a baseline study on governance of sustainable development at the subnational level. To better understand how municipalities currently integrate related goals into their governance and planning frameworks, the government could launch a baseline study assessing municipal-level governance practices. This study could map existing local sustainability initiatives, identify capacity gaps, and highlight opportunities for better co‑ordination between municipalities and central government institutions.

5. Establish a structured platform for municipalities to exchange best practices, discuss implementation challenges, and share data on progress. This could take the form of a digital knowledge hub or regular regional forums where municipalities showcase innovative sustainability initiatives, particularly those linked to EU funding opportunities.

6. Strengthen the link between local initiatives and EU financing instruments. Municipalities could receive technical assistance in preparing project proposals that align with EU sustainability priorities, particularly in areas including among others infrastructure, and urban development.

By adopting these measures, Bulgaria could create a more structured and effective approach to localising sustainable development policies, ensuring that municipalities play an active role in achieving national and international sustainability objectives.

References

[14] Government of Ireland (n.d.), Irelan’d SDG GeoHive, Sustainable Development Goals Data Hub, Central Statistics Office & Ordnance Survey Ireland, https://irelandsdg.geohive.ie (accessed on 25 February 2025).

[21] Government of Italy (2021), National Recovery and Resilience Plan, https://www.italiadomani.gov.it/en/strumenti/documenti/archivio-documenti/national-recovery-and-reslieince-plan.html.

[22] Government of Portugal (2023), 2023 Voluntary National Review, United Nations High-Level Political Forum, https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/vnrs/2023/Portugal_VNR_Report.pdf.

[10] Government of Spain (n.d.), National Office of Foresight and Strategy, Ministry of the Presidency, https://futuros.gob.es/en/office.

[19] KS (2021), Voluntary Subnational Review – Norway: Implementation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals in Norwegian Local and Regional Government, KS, https://gold.uclg.org/sites/default/files/norway_2021.pdf.

[18] KS & Nordregio (2021), Localising the Sustainable Development Goals in Europe: Perspectives for the north, KS, https://www.ks.no/contentassets/72ade1e76c514378a755f2e38762c8a1/KSReportSDGFinal.pdf.

[13] National Statistical Institute (n.d.), “Monitorstat, National Information System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Strategic Documents”, https://monitorstat.nsi.bg/en/Home/PageContent?type=Monitorstat (accessed on 18 February 2025).

[20] Norwegian Government (n.d.), KOSTRA – Municipality-State Reporting, Government of Norway, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/kommuner-og-regioner/municipal-economy/kostra-municipality--state-reporting/id1233/.

[9] OECD (2025), Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government: Lessons from Lithuania, Italy, and Malta, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7eb0bb6-en.

[8] OECD (2025), Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy: A Comprehensive Foresight Methodology to Support Sustainable and Future-Ready Public Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bcdd9304-en.

[15] OECD (2024), “Guidance Note on Strategic Planning and Co‑ordination in Bulgaria”, OECD, Paris, unpublished.

[1] OECD (2024), “Guiding Principles for Monitoring and Evaluating Strategic Documents in Bulgaria”, OECD, Paris, unpublished.

[16] OECD (2024), Spending Reviews: Lessons from the Netherlands, International Monetary Fund Public Financial Management Blog, https://blog-pfm.imf.org/en/pfmblog/2023/03/spending-reviews-lessons-from-the-netherlands.

[6] OECD (2024), Steering from the Centre of Government in Times of Complexity: Compendium of Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69b1f129-en.

[2] OECD (2024), Unleashing Policy Coherence to Achieve the SDGs: An Assessment of Governance Mechanisms, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1c8dbf8-en.

[7] OECD (2023), “Coherence and co-ordination at the centre of government in Romania”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3feaa33e-en.

[3] OECD (2022), “Centre of government scan of Bulgaria: Strengthening strategic decision-making at the centre of government”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 19, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/464a42b5-en.

[12] OECD (2022), The Short and Winding Road to 2030: Measuring Distance to the SDG Targets, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af4b630d-en.

[5] OECD (2019), “Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0381, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0381 (accessed on 1 July 2020).

[17] Republic of Bulgaria (2025), “Implementation of the Second Voluntary National Review on the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Bulgaria”, unpublished.

[11] Republic of Bulgaria (2023), “Resolution No. 52 of 10 April 2023, on the Organization and Co ordination of Monitoring and Reporting on the Implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”, unpublished.

[4] Republic of Bulgaria (2020), “National Development Programme BULGARIA 2030”, https://www.minfin.bg/en/1394?__cf_chl_f_tk=ZFECN8.SwDK6UaGHaYBmJYiHJfXO9zW1mySCAsggEjo-1783434004-1.0.1.1-D2WIhXAe8cpHztbOC51NYY_MJskRRKdhHou6PsL.MoA (accessed on 7 July 2026).