Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014

Transcription

IndependentReportingMechanism(IRM)
ProgressReport2014-2015:Estonia
Dr.KristiinaTõnnisson,JohanSkytteInstituteofPoliticalStudiesattheUniversityofTartu
TableofContents
Executivesummary.........................................................................................................2
I.NationalparticipationinOGP.................................................................................10
II.Process:Actionplandevelopment......................................................................14
III.Process:Actionplanimplementation...............................................................19
IV.Analysisofactionplancontents..........................................................................21
1:Transparencyofpolicy-makingprocess.....................................................................27
2:Standardforinformationrequests...............................................................................31
3:Earlyaccesstotaxpolicydecisions...............................................................................34
4:Enhancingthequalityofgovernment-ledparticipationprocesses...................36
5:Capacity-buildingsupportfornongovernmentalpartnersinpolicy-making39
6:WebtoolforpetitionstoParliament............................................................................42
7:Upgradinggovernmentportalforopenspending/budgettransparency........45
8:Guidelinesforcitizenbudgeting....................................................................................49
9:Citizen-centredpublicservices......................................................................................51
10:Accesstoe-servicesfornon-residents......................................................................54
11:Enhancingopendatasupplyandre-usebynongovernmentalactors............57
V.Process:Self-assessment.........................................................................................60
VI.Countrycontext.........................................................................................................64
VII.Generalrecommendations..................................................................................71
VIII.Methodologyandsources...................................................................................74
IX.Eligibilityrequirements.........................................................................................77
1
ExecutiveSummary:Estonia
IndependentReportingMechanism(IRM)ProgressReport2014–2015
Estonia’ssecondOGPactionplanprioritisedparticipatorypolicy-making,budgettransparency,
andcitizen-centredpublicservices.AlthoughcivicengagementintheOGPprocesshas
increased,thecircleofinvolvednongovernmentalactorsstillremainssmall.Movingforward,
thenextplanmustcontainspecificperformanceindicatorstobemeasurable.Itshouldalso
prioritiseanti-corruptionandactivitiestoopenlocalgovernmentandtheParliament.
Ataglance
TheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)isavoluntary
internationalinitiativethataimstosecurecommitmentsfrom
governmentstotheircitizenrytopromotetransparency,
empowercitizens,fightcorruption,andharnessnew
technologiestostrengthengovernance.TheIRMreviewsthe
activitiesofeachOGP-participatingcountry.
InEstonia,thegovernmentagencyinchargeofco-ordinating
OGPparticipationwastheGovernmentOffice,fromthe
executivebranch,whichcollaboratedwiththeOGPCivilSociety
Roundtable(CSR).Otherministriesandpublicagenciesalso
participated.Thisrepresentedasignificantimprovementover
thelackofinstitutionalownershipthataffectedthefirstaction
planbecausenoagencyformallyagreedtoassumethe
responsibility.
ThePrimeMinisterparticipatedinpromotingtheOGPaction
planbutdidnottakepersonalresponsibilityforits
implementation.
OGPPROCESS
CountriesparticipatinginOGPfollowaprocessforconsultation
duringdevelopmentandimplementationoftheirOGPaction
plan.
DevelopmentofthesecondOGPactionplanfollowedmostOGP
ProcessRequirements,butduetothegeneralelectionsinearly
2014,theprocessstartedlate.Itstartedtwomonthsbeforethe
30June2014submissiondeadline.Althoughwellorganised,a
limitedamountofnongovernmentactorscouldparticipate,and
thetimeconstraintsimpactedthequality.
Oneoftheimportantnongovernmentalcontributorstothe
processwastheCSR,whosesuggestionswereoftenthebasis
forcommitmentdevelopment.AninformalOGPConsultation
BoardandtheformalOGPCo-ordinatingBoard,bothcomprised
ofgovernmentofficialsassociatedwithOGPandof
nongovernmentalorganisationspartners,alsohadinfluence.
Membersince:
2011
Numberofcommitments: 23
LevelofCompletion:
Completed:
5(22%)
Substantial:
14(61%)
Limited:
4(17%)
Notstarted:
0(0%)
Timing:
Onorahead
ofschedule:
18(78%)
CommitmentEmphasis:
Accesstoinformation: 16(70%)
Civicparticipation:
12(52%)
Accountability:
4(17%)
Tech&innovation
fortransparency
&accountability:
9(39%)
Unclear:
1(4%)
NumberofCommitmentsthat
Were:
Clearlyrelevanttoan
OGPvalue:
22(96%)
Oftransformative
potentialimpact:
0(0%)
Substantiallyor
completely
implemented:
19(83%)
Allthree(✪):
0(0%)
Thegovernmentpresenteditsself-assessmentreporton8
September2015attheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard’smeeting.A
publiccommentperiodbeganon12September2015.However,thedocumentdidnotreceive
anypubliccomments.
ThisreportwaspreparedbyDr.KristiinaTõnnisson,JohanSkytteInstituteofPolitical
StudiesattheUniversityofTartu.
2
COMMITMENTIMPLEMENTATION
AspartofOGP,countriesarerequiredtomakecommitmentsinatwo-yearactionplan.The
researcherorganisedthe23activitiesinEstonia’ssecondactionplaninto11clusters,while
maintainingtheoriginalnumbering,foreaseofreference.Theseclusterscategorisemultiple
commitmentstogetherthathavesimilarprioritiesaccordingtoOGPvalues.Thefollowingtables
summariseeachcommitment,includingitslevelofcompletion,ambition,whetheritfallswithin
theplannedschedule,andthekeynextstepsforthecommitmentinfutureOGPactionplans.
TheEstonianactionplandidnotcontainanystarredcommitments.Starredcommitmentsare
measurable,clearlyrelevanttoOGPvaluesaswritten,oftransformativepotentialimpact,and
substantiallyorcompletelyimplemented.NotethattheIRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly
2015toraisethebarformodelOGPcommitments.Undertheoldcriteria,sevencommitments
(2.5,2.6,4.1,4.2,5.2,6.1,and6.2)wouldhavequalifiedasstarredcommitments.See
(http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/5919)formoreinformation.
Table1:AssessmentofProgressbyCommitment
TIMING
COMPLETE
SUBSTANTIAL
LIMITED
LEVEL OF
COMPLETION
NOT STARTED
TRANSFORMATIVE
MODERATE
MINOR
POTENTIAL
IMPACT
NONE
COMMITMENT SHORT NAME
1: TRANSPARENCY OF POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
1.1. Visualisation of the policy-making process:
Provide a better overview of the process of public
policy-making and opportunities to participate.
On schedule
1.2. Upgrading participation channels: Enhance
the user-friendliness of e-participation channels and
inform potential users.
On schedule
1.3. Improving government websites: Provide
content for the participation section of the new
government website.
Behind schedule
2.1. Early notice on policy-making processes:
Make information about participation opportunities
available early.
Behind schedule
2: STANDARD FOR INFORMATION REQUESTS
1.4. Standard for information requests: Develop a
unified form for requests through the eesti.ee portal.
On schedule
3: EARLY ACCESS TO TAX POLICY DECISIONS
2.3. Early access to tax policy decisions: Make
important budgeting and taxation policy decisions in
spring, together with the Budget Strategy.
Ahead of
schedule
4: ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT-LED PARTICIPATION PROCESSES
2.2. Participation in early stage policy-making:
Promote initiatives to enable discussion about policy
choices during the early stages of policy-making.
On schedule
3
TIMING
COMPLETE
SUBSTANTIAL
LIMITED
LEVEL OF
COMPLETION
NOT STARTED
TRANSFORMATIVE
MODERATE
MINOR
POTENTIAL
IMPACT
NONE
2.4. Better feedback mechanisms: Introduce
various methods of feedback to government bodies.
On schedule
3.1. Civil servant guidelines for participation:
Create guidelines for methods and best practices of
participation.
Behind schedule
5: CAPACITY BUILDING SUPPORT FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS IN POLICY-MAKING
2.5. Selecting and funding participation
projects: Provide content for projects funded by
European Union structural funds.
On schedule
3.2. Training civil society organisations (CSOs):
Increase CSOs’ ability to analyse and to form
positions on public policies.
On schedule
6: WEB TOOL FOR PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT
2.6. Web tool: Create a nongovernmental webbased discussion environment.
Behind schedule
7: UPGRADING GOVERNMENT PORTAL FOR OPEN SPENDING/BUDGET TRANSPARENCY
4.1. Central government transactions: Include
accounting data in the public finances web app.
On schedule
4.2. Local authorities’ transactions with private
entities: Publish transactions with private entities
and connect this information to the business
registry.
On schedule
4.3. Public spending for non-profits: Include
third sector organisations in the public finances app.
Behind schedule
8: GUIDELINES FOR CITIZEN BUDGETING
4.4. Guidelines for citizen budgeting: Compile
guidelines for local authorities to provide concise
local budget overviews to citizens.
Ahead of
schedule
9: CITIZEN-CENTRED PUBLIC SERVICES
5.1. Guidelines for redesigning public services:
Create an interactive online toolbox with guidance,
methods, and best practices.
On schedule
5.2. Registry of public services: Create an
overview of all services in a unified, machine- and
human-readable format.
On schedule
5.3. User-centric public services: Implement pilot
projects with selected services.
On schedule
4
TIMING
COMPLETE
SUBSTANTIAL
LIMITED
LEVEL OF
COMPLETION
NOT STARTED
TRANSFORMATIVE
MODERATE
NONE
MINOR
POTENTIAL
IMPACT
10: ACCESS TO E-SERVICES FOR NON-RESIDENTS
5.4. Access to e-services for non-residents: Issue
digital identification documents to non-residents so
they can use e-services.
On schedule
11: ENHANCING OPEN DATA SUPPLY AND RE-USE BY NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS
6.1. Open data portal: Transform the portal from
pilot use to real use with basic level of organisational
support.
6.2. Opening data: Organise public competitions
for the opening of data.
6.3. Supporting nongovernmental open data
use: Organise events that involve public
participation in using open data such as hackathons.
On schedule
Ahead of
schedule
On schedule
5
Table2:SummaryofProgressbyCommitment
NAME
SUMMARY
1: TRANSPARENCY OF POLICY-MAKING PROCESS
1.1. Visualisation of the policy-making process
•
OGP value relevance: Clear
•
Potential impact: Minor
•
Completion: Complete
1.2. Upgrading participation channels
•
•
•
Completion: Substantial
1.3. Improving government websites
•
•
•
Completion: Limited
2.1. Early notice on policy-making processes
•
•
Potential impact: Moderate
•
Completion: Limited
This cluster aims to improve access to information related to participation.
For the first activity (1.1), the government completed the visualisation of
policy-making and legislative processes, and introduced it to partners. In the
second activity (1.2), while the report for improving the channels is finished,
the channels have not been enhanced or integrated. For the third activity
(1.3), ministries agreed on the form and structure of the participation section
of the government website. Finally, for the fourth activity (2.1), different
stakeholders held strategic discussions and proposed solutions, some of which
have been approved. The government reports that it will complete the
activities by June 2016.
A better overview of participation opportunities tries to enhance
understanding of policy-making processes, but does little to motivate
participation. Still, making information about the actual proceedings
accessible at the early stages could raise public interest. Moving forward, the
government should complete the pending activities. In addition, CSOs the
IRM researcher consulted proposed giving participants in policy-making
consultations more decision making powers. The researcher also recommends
concentrating on improving the usability of existing systems, rather than
creating new channels.
2: STANDARD FOR INFORMATION REQUESTS
1.4. Standard for information requests
•
•
•
The main purpose of this activity is to enhance eesti.ee. The government
completed the first and second stages on schedule, but as of writing this
report, they were still working on some additional changes and no standard
for information requests existed. CSOs consulted by the IRM researcher did
not consider this activity of high importance, and some public administrators
stated that it is a minor technical issue taking attention away from large
challenges. The commitment does not adequately address the most significant
issues such as the system’s general functionality, usability, user-friendliness,
etc. Future action plans could omit similar low-impact improvement activities.
3: EARLY ACCESS TO TAX POLICY DECISIONS
2.3. Early access to tax policy decisions
•
•
•
The Estonian Parliament adopted an updated Taxation Act that requires at
least six months between changes in the Taxation Act and enforcement of the
changes. But, while this change will increase public discussions about tax
policy issues, simply allowing more time may not help achieve strategic and
sustainable tax policy and may not improve transparency in state finances.
Moving forward, to make more potentially impactful commitments,
stakeholders should emphasise concrete participatory activities to open
decision making around tax policies effectively. CSOs consulted by IRM
researcher also pointed out that the State Budget Act should focus on clear
language and ease of reading.
4: ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF GOVERNMENT-LED PARTICIPATION PROCESSES
2.2. Participation in early stage policy-making
•
•
•
2.4. Better feedback mechanisms
•
•
•
3.1. Civil servant guidelines for participation
•
•
•
Completion: Limited
The first activity (2.2) aims to strengthen the overall policy-making process
(especially in earlier stages) and to involve more participants in policy
discussions. The government reports that they are analysing the usage of
different guidelines and planning several additional steps in 2016. The second
activity (2.4) aims to introduce feedback to participants on policy-making
processes. The government held discussions about possible solutions with
stakeholders and is looking for funding for the next activities. Finally, the
third activity (3.1) aims to share participation experiences with civil servants
active in policy-making, but lacking deep experience in the field. Although the
government did not make a new webpage for this goal, with CSOs, the
government has discussed several (pending) activities to share best practices.
Civil and academic organisations consulted by the IRM researcher requested
support for strategic partnerships between ministries and CSOs. The IRM
researcher also recommends continuing to develop participation activities,
especially in budgeting, and the IRM researcher recommends further
experimentation with this method at the subnational level.
6
(Table2Continued)
5: CAPACITY BUILDING SUPPORT FOR NONGOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS IN POLICY-MAKING
2.5. Selecting and funding participation projects
•
•
•
3.2. Training CSOs
•
•
•
For the first activity (2.5), the government and civil society designed the
funding measures and funded one of seven possible projects, as per schedule.
For the second activity (3.2), 30 CSO leaders passed 11 different trainings as
part of a leadership development programme, and various ministries are
planning additional training and partnership activities. The IRM researcher
recommends future action plans more closely link the design and
implementation of participation commitments. CSOs the IRM researcher
consulted also underscored that funded projects should include monitoring
and evaluation elements as well as mainstream best practices.
6: WEB TOOL FOR PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT
2.6. Web tool for petitions to the Parliament and
municipalities
•
•
•
The Estonian Co-operation Assembly launched the webpage in March 2016
(outside the period evaluated by this report). Citizens used the associated
regulation, and the Parliament accepted the first legal amendment at the
beginning of 2015. It is still unclear whether this new webpage will be
popular, so the IRM researcher recommends promoting the webpage.
However, the government should consider creating one central webpage.
Further, a webpage is not sufficient, so while the regulation to allow for direct
democracy is laudable, future commitment should be oriented specifically
towards the environment and incentives for participation.
7: UPGRADING GOVERNMENT PORTAL FOR OPEN SPENDING/BUDGET TRANSPARENCY
4.1. Central government transactions
•
•
•
4.2. Local authorities’ transactions with private
entities
•
•
•
4.3. Public spending for non-profits
•
•
•
Completion: Limited
The first activity (4.1) seeks to make budget spending more transparent. The
government opened a new State Finances webpage in 2014, and made
improvements to its user-friendliness and volume of data. The government
plans to finish development by the end of 2015 and to launch the webpage in
the beginning of 2016. The second activity (4.2) publicises information on
transactions with local authorities like the names of organisations, allocated
funds, and purposes of the funding. The government established the scope
and cost of the project, but did not approve or apply the new law. Finally, the
third activity (4.3) is closely related to activity 4.1. It aims to develop the
public finances application. The government reports that it is still discussing
this activity. The portal does not show which companies, CSOs, or
foundations outside of the government sector received public funds. The
IRM researcher recommends advertising the application “State Finances” and
encouraging people to use it. As a longer-term goal, the IRM researcher
recommends involving more local governments in the public finance
transparency process.
8: GUIDELINES FOR CITIZEN BUDGETING
4.4. Guidelines for citizen budgeting
•
•
•
This activity aims to transfer the knowledge on how to create user-friendly
overviews of local government budgets from the central government (the
Ministry of Finance) to local municipalities. In January 2015, the Ministry
prepared guidelines that were added to its webpage and introduced to local
municipalities. However, various guidelines already existed on this subject.
The activity does not create a new product, but offers an Estonian version of
an existing product. Still, the IRM researcher recommends explaining the
benefits of using the guidelines, including demonstrating good examples from
local municipalities. At a later stage, a commitment to offer state funding for
pilot projects to test approaches for local budgets could have more impact.
7
(Table2Continued)
9: CITIZEN-CENTRED PUBLIC SERVICES
5.1. Guidelines for redesigning public services
•
•
•
5.2. Registry of public services
•
•
•
5.3. User-centric public services
•
•
•
The first activity (5.1) aims to prepare guidelines on the redesigning of public
services. While the government completed the initial task of gathering the
materials for the toolbox, they report that this activity will not be completed
due to lack of financing. The second activity (5.2) aims to create an overview
of all public services in the portfolio of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communications. The Ministry described and published the public services it
and sub-agencies provide. The government expects all e-services to be
described in a unified format by March 2016. The third activity (5.3) aims to
implement pilot projects using the guidelines to design user-friendly eservices. So far, the government funded four pilot projects that should be
completed by the end of 2015. While these activities would improve the
situation to a certain degree, most of the information and services were
available already. Still, the IRM researcher recommends completing the
pending implementation. For next steps, stakeholders should consider the
resources the Open Government Guide provides on the public service topic.
10: ACCESS TO E-SERVICES FOR NON-RESIDENTS
5.4. Access to e-services for non-residents
•
•
OGP value relevance: Unclear
•
Initially, the application process for a digital ID was inconvenient because
interested e-residents needed to be in Estonia to confirm their existence.
However, since May 2015, it has been possible to receive the digital ID from
the nearest embassy of Estonia. As of September 2015, 5,000 e-residents
received their digital ID. But, although this commitment is interesting, it is
not clearly relevant to open government. As written, it does not include a
clear element of access to information, public accountability, or civic
participation. For the next open government action plan, stakeholders should
include only commitments of clear relevance to the OGP values of open
government.
11: ENHANCING OPEN DATA SUPPLY AND RE-USE BY NONGOVERNMENTAL ACTORS
6.1. Open data portal
•
•
•
6.2. Opening data
•
•
•
6.3. Supporting nongovernmental open data use
•
•
•
These activities largely continue concern from the previous OGP action plan
about public competitions and the recycling of open data. For the first activity
(6.1), the government launched the full open data portal and created the
organisational structure to keep the portal running. For the second activity
(6.2), the government organised the relevant competition for the best pilot
project and funded several pilot projects to open data. For the third activity
(6.3), so far, the government held “information days” and some trainings
about open data recycling. Moving forward, the IRM researcher recommends
completing the rest of the activities. Then, the IRM researcher recommends
that stakeholders consider increasing the number of data sets, creating
dedicated civil servant positions for open data, and incorporating international
open data standards. Finally, a potentially transformative new commitment
could develop clear feedback mechanisms for data users and providers to
identify priority datasets for release, for example.
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
Giventhesefindings,theIRMresearcherpresentsthefollowingkeyrecommendations.Beginning
in2014,allOGPIRMreportsincludefivekeyrecommendationsaboutthenextOGPaction
planningcycle.GovernmentsparticipatinginOGPwillberequiredtorespondtothesekey
recommendationsintheirannualself-assessmentsreports.Theserecommendationsfollowthe
“SMART”logic:theyarespecific,measurable,answerable,relevant,andtimebound.
ThefollowingsuggestionsarebasedontheassumptionthatEstoniawillcontinuebeinganactive
partnerinOGPandthatitwillpaymoreattentiontotheOGPactionplaninthefuture.According
tothefocusgroupsandinterviews,thecurrentactionplanoftenisseenasanadditional
frameworkinsteadofanopportunitytoinnovateandtopushbeyondthestatusquo.Thisisa
frequentchallengeforOGP-participatingcountries,andEstoniaisnotaloneinneedingtofaceit.
Inthissense,atbest,stakeholderscurrentlyseeOGPasproviding“promotional”and
“educational”value.
KEY SMART RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Government Office should continue to improve proactive and regular
communication around the action plan and the OGP process. This will involve
dedicating sufficient time for a more participatory process in designing the action plan and
optimizing communication channels to promote OGP results and outputs more clearly.
2. Estonia’s OGP process requires more high-level political support to promote and
galvanise wider participation in Estonia’s OGP process, especially at the early
stages. The Government Office should seek allies and champions across all branches and
levels of government.
3. The action plan should make commitments that follow the SMART logic: they
should be clear, specific, measurable, answerable, relevant, and time bound. All
commitments should include clear baselines, targets, indicators, and explanations of their
relationship to, or overlap with, other public administration initiatives.
4. The next action plan should focus on fewer but more ambitious reforms.
Commitments should set ambitious goals with a greater focus on how the OGP action
plan could add value to Estonia’s open government process.
5. The action plan should include certain key open government topics that are
priorities for Estonia. Among other priorities that stakeholders will identify in the
consultation process, possible priorities include anti-corruption, public ethics, and key
public service sectors like health and education. The plan also should be coherent and
complementary with Estonia’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
EligibilityRequirements2014:ToparticipateinOGP,governmentsmustdemonstratecommitmenttoopengovernmentby
meetingminimumcriteriaonkeydimensionsofopengovernment.Third-partyindicatorsareusedtodeterminecountryprogressoneachof
thedimensions.Formoreinformation,seeSectionIXoneligibilityrequirementsattheendofthisreportorvisit
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/eligibility-criteria.
DrKristiinaTõnnissonistheHeadofJohanSkytteInstituteofPoliticalStudiesatthe
UniversityofTartuinEstonia.WithaspecialregardtoCentralandEasternEurope,hermain
researchinterestsincluderegionaldevelopment,publicmanagement,localdemocracyand
civilsociety.Shehasbeeninvolvedinarangeofresearchprojectsandevaluationstudies.She
isalsoChairoftheBoardattheEstonian“NationalFoundationofCivilSociety.”
TheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)aimstosecureconcretecommitmentsfrom
governmentstopromotetransparency,empowercitizens,fightcorruption,andharnessnew
technologiestostrengthengovernance.OGP’sIndependentReportingMechanismassesses
developmentandimplementationofnationalactionplanstofosterdialogueamong
stakeholdersandtoimproveaccountability.
9
I.NationalparticipationinOGP
HistoryofOGPparticipation
TheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)isavoluntary,multi-stakeholderinternational
initiativethataimstosecureconcretecommitmentsfromgovernmentstotheircitizenry
topromotetransparency,empowercitizens,fightcorruption,andharnessnew
technologiestostrengthengovernance.Inpursuitofthesegoals,OGPprovidesan
internationalforumfordialogueandsharingamonggovernments,civilsociety
organisations,andtheprivatesector,allofwhichcontributetoacommonpursuitof
opengovernment.OGPstakeholdersincludeparticipatinggovernmentsaswellascivil
societyandprivatesectorentitiesthatsupporttheprinciplesandmissionofOGP.
EstoniabeganitsformalparticipationinSeptember2011,whenPresidentToomas
HendrikIlvesdeclaredhiscountry’sintentiontoparticipateintheinitiative.1
ToparticipateinOGP,governmentsmustexhibitademonstratedcommitmenttoopen
governmentbymeetingasetofminimumperformancecriteriaonkeydimensionsof
opengovernmentthatareparticularlyconsequentialforincreasinggovernment
responsiveness,strengtheningcitizenengagement,andfightingcorruption.Objective,
third-partyindicatorsareusedtodeterminetheextentofcountryprogressoneachof
thedimensions.SeeSectionIX,“EligibilityRequirements,”formoredetails. AllOGP-participatinggovernmentsdevelopOGPcountryactionplansthatelaborate
concretecommitmentsoveraninitialtwo-yearperiod.Actionplansshouldsetout
governments’OGPcommitments,whichmovegovernmentpracticebeyonditscurrent
baseline.Thesecommitmentsmaybuildonexistingefforts,identifynewstepsto
completeongoingreforms,orinitiateactioninanentirelynewarea.
EstoniadevelopeditssecondnationalactionplanfromApriltoJune2014,andthe
governmentadopteditinJune.Theeffectiveperiodofimplementationfortheaction
plansubmittedinJunewasofficially1July2014throughJune30,2016.Thegovernment
publisheditsself-assessmentreportinOctoberof2015.Atthetimeofwriting,someof
theactivitiesplannedwithEstonia’scommitmentshavebeenfinishedandsomeremain
tobeimplemented.AccordingtotheOGPCalendar,2preparationsforthethirdaction
planshouldbegininJanuary2016.
Basicinstitutionalcontext
CivilsocietyinitiatedEstonia’sparticipationinOGP.Therepresentativeofa
nongovernmentalorganisationnamedE-GovernanceAcademywaspresentatthe
introductorymeetinginWashington,D.C.,whereEstoniadeclareditsdesiretojoinOGP.
Later,thesamepersonintroducedtheinitiativetotheMinistryofForeignAffairs,who
agreedtostarttheformalprocessforjoiningOGP.TheMinistryofForeignAffairs
becametheofficialcontactforpreparingEstonia’smembershipprocess,butthe
GovernmentOfficeco-ordinatedinthepreparationphaseforthefirstactionplan(20112012).TheGovernmentOfficeisagovernmentinstitutionsupportingthegovernment
andthePrimeMinisterinpolicydraftingandimplementation.Thetransferof
responsibilitywasnecessarybecausepolicyco-ordinationforinternalpurposesand
oversightofothergovernmentagenciesarenottheMinistryofForeignAffairs’core
functions.Duringthepreparations,theGovernmentOfficecollaboratedcloselywiththe
OGPCivilSocietyRoundtable(CSR),agroupofvoluntarycivilsocietyactiviststhat
convenedspecificallytofacilitatethepreparationsforjoiningOGPandthedevelopment
ofOGPactionplans.Theimplementationofthefirstactionplansufferedfromalackof
ownershipoftheOGPprocessbecausenoagencyformallyagreedtoassumethe
responsibilityforoverseeingtheactionplanimplementation.3
10
ThegovernmentthattookofficeinMarch2014duringthepreparationsforthesecond
actionplanstressedtheneedtoincreaseopennessofgovernanceinEstonia.Asa
responsetoprevioussuggestions(includingfromthelastIndependentReporting
Mechanism(IRM)report),theGovernmentOfficewasdesignatedresponsiblefor
participatinginandco-ordinatingtheOGPprocessinEstonia.Thisbetterintegratedthe
OGPactionplanintothegovernment’sfocus,priorities,andplannedactivities.4The
PrimeMinisterparticipatedinthepromotionoftheOGPactionplan,butdidnotassume
personalresponsibilityforitsimplementation.
Tofacilitatetheactionplandevelopment,theGovernmentOfficehiredaconsultantfrom
anongovernmentalorganisation.Further,undertheleadershipoftheSecretaryofState,
theGovernmentofficeactivelyincludedfiveministriesthatareresponsibleforsubject
areascloselylinkedtoOGP.Toalesserdegree,otherministriesandpublicagencies
participatedinvariousphases.Inadditiontotheexecutivebranchofgovernment,
nongovernmentalorganisationsactivelytookpartinthedevelopmentand
implementationoftheactionplan.Throughouttheprocess,representativesofprivate
sectororganisations,theOGPCSRandcivilsocietyumbrellaorganisationswere
included(seeSectionsIIandIII).
Fortheactionplanimplementation,theSecretaryofStateformedtheOGPCoordinatingBoard.Thisofficialforumincludedrepresentativesofgovernmentand
nongovernmentalorganisationsinanalmostequalproportion.TheCo-ordinatingBoard
wasresponsibleforco-ordinating,monitoring,andevaluatingtheactionplan
implementationaswellasmakingrecommendationsanddecisionsregardingthe
partnership.TheCo-ordinatingBoardalsowasresponsibleforpromotingEstonia’s
objectivesandactivitiesinparticipatinginOGP(seeSectionIII).Thispermanent
consultationmechanismhelpedstrengthentheco-ordinationoftheOGPactionplan
implementationandguaranteedpermanentstakeholderinvolvement.TheOGPCSRis
consideredanimportantpartner.TheCSRgavesignificantinputintodevelopingthe
actionplanandwasresponsiblefornominatingnongovernmentalpartnerstotheOGP
Co-ordinatingBoard.TheCSRdrawsattentiontoopengovernanceandrelatedissues,
evenoutsideoftheactionplanframework.
InEstonia,theexecutivebranchofgovernmentismainlyconcernedwithOGP.The
publicadministratorshavethemainresponsibilityfordevelopingandimplementingthe
OGPactionplan,andtheGovernmentoftheRepublicapprovestheactionplan.The
nationalParliament(Riigikogu)andthepoliticaleliteoutsideofthegovernmenthave
notbeeninvolvedsufficiently.5NolawshavebeenadoptedanddedicatedsolelyforOGP,
althoughOGPprinciplesarereflectedinvariouslegalacts.Further,thereisonlyone
activityrelatedtotheParliamentintheactionplan(aweb-baseddiscussion
environmentforthepreparationofcollectivepetitions).
OGPhascentredmainlyonthecentralgovernment.EventhoughEstoniahasaunitary
system,thesecondactionplandidnotgivenecessaryattentiontothesubnational
government,despitethepreviousIRMresearcher’ssuggestion.6Localgovernment
associationswereinformedoftheactionplandevelopment,butdidnotparticipatein
theprocess.Inaddition,someactivitiesrelatedtolocalgovernmentsintheactionplan
(e.g.harmonizingformsforinformationrequests,guidanceoncompilingashort
overviewoflocalbudgets,andpublicizingnongovernmentaltransactionpartnersof
localauthorities);however,directresponsibilityandseparateactivitiesforlocal
governmentswerenotplanned.Accordingtotheactionplan,thecontinuedfocusonthe
centralgovernmentwasnecessaryforamorefocusedapproachandwasbasedonthe
notionthattherewasstillmuchtoachieveatthecentralgovernmentlevel.7
ThebudgetdedicatedtoOGPishardtoestimateorcalculatebecausethereisnospecial
budgetdedicatedtoOGP.OGPactivitiesoftencoincidewiththeimplementationof
11
activitiesandmeasuresderivingfromotherstrategicdocuments.8Ingeneral,financial
sourcesincludedintheimplementationoftheOGPactionplanaretheStateBudget,9
EuropeanUnionStructuralFunds(ESFandERDF),andthebudgetoftheEstonianCooperationAssembly(activity2.6,partly)thatispartoftheStateBudget.Unliketheother
activities,noadditionalfundingwasplannedforactivity2.3onfiscalpolicydecision
timingoractivity4.4onlocalgovernmentguidanceforcitizens’budgets.10
Similarly,itishardtoestimatetheamountofadministrativeburdenofOGPorthe
numberofstaffdedicatedtoOGP.ThereisapersonresponsibleforOGPinthe
GovernmentOffice,andtherearenumerouspublicservantsresponsibleforvarious
activitiesworkinginvariousministriesandunits.Additionally,nongovernmental
organisationsarededicatingsignificantresourcestothemeetingsandactivities.Mostof
thepeopleinvolvedcarryouttheseresponsibilitiesasadditionaladministrativetasks,
notaspartoftheirmaintasks.InpartbecausenospecialbudgetwasdedicatedtoOGP,
theOGPactionplanincludesmostlyactivitiesthatwerealreadyplannedtobe
implementedinotherstrategiesordocumentsandforwhichabudgetwasavailable
alreadythroughotherchannels.
Methodologicalnote
TheIRMpartnerswithexperienced,independentnationalresearcherstoauthorand
disseminatereportsforeachOGPparticipatinggovernment.InEstonia,theIRM
partneredwithDr.KristiinaTõnnissonfromtheJohanSkytteInstituteofPolitical
StudiesattheUniversityofTartu.KristiinaTõnnissonreviewedthegovernment’sselfassessmentreport,gatheredtheviewsofcivilsociety,andinterviewedappropriate
governmentofficialsandotherstakeholders.OGPstaffandapanelofexpertsreviewed
thereport.
TheIRMalsothanksthepreviousnationalresearcherforEstonia,HilleHinsberg,whois
nowamemberoftheIRM’sInternationalExpertsPanel.11
ThisreportcoversthefirstyearofimplementationofEstonia’sactionplanfrom1July
2014to1December2015.Beginningin2015,theIRMalsopublishesend-of-term
reportstoaccountforthefinalstatusofprogressattheendoftheactionplan’stwo-year
period.ThisreportfollowsonanearlierreviewofOGPperformance,“EstoniaProgress
Report2012-2013,”whichcoveredthedevelopmentofthefirstactionplanaswellas
implementationfrom1May2012to31July2013.
Togatherthevoicesofmultiplestakeholders,KristiinaTõnnissonorganisedtwo
stakeholderforums,inTallinnandTartu,whichwereconductedaccordingtoafocus
grouptechnique.KristiinaTõnnissonalsoreviewedtwokeydocumentspreparedbythe
government:areportonEstonia’ssecondactionplan12andtheself-assessmentreport
publishedbythegovernmentinOctober2015.13Numerousreferencesaremadeto
thesedocumentsthroughoutthisreport.
SummariesoftheseforumsandmoredetailedexplanationsaregiveninSectionVIIIon
methodologyandsources.
1Seehttp://www.opengovpartnership.org/country/estoniaformoreinformation.
2“OGPTimeline2015-2018,”Estonia,OpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP),http://bit.ly/1LGVotN
3HilleHinsberg,SõltumatuHindamisaruanne:EestiAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskavaTäitmine
2012-2013(2014),20.
4Riigikantselei,Estonia’sActionPlaninParticipatingintheOpenGovernmentPartnership2014-2016
(Tallinn,2014),3,http://bit.ly/1S6jUkU
5Hinsberg,SõltumatuHindamisaruanne,65.
6Hinsberg,SõltumatuHindamisaruanne,69.
7Estonia’sActionPlan,4,http://bit.ly/1S6jUkU
12
8“SummaryoftheOGPConsultationBoard’sMeeting,”17April2014,2,http://bit.ly/1WIHDve
9Forsomeactivities,itwasspecifiedthattheresourceswouldbeincludedthroughthebudgetsofthe
GovernmentOffice,theMinistryofFinance,orconcernedministries.
10ThisisbasedontheactivitiesdescribedintheOGPactionplanontheGovernmentOffice’swebsite.
“Tegevuskava2014-2016,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1ZsYynd
11TheOGPprovidesmoreinformationaboutthisbody.“AbouttheIEP,”OGP,
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/irm/about-iep
12Estonia’sActionPlan,http://bit.ly/1S6jUkU
13RepublicofEstonia,Estonia’sOpenGovernmentPartnershipActionPlanfor2014-2016:TheInterimReport
ontheImplementationoftheActionPlanbytheGovernmentOffice(Tallinn,2015),http://bit.ly/1ShJ5Ds
13
II.Process:Actionplandevelopment
TheactionplandevelopmenttookplaceundertheleadershipoftheGovernmentOffice.
ThepreparationsfollowedthemajorityoftheOGPProcessRequirements.Avarietyof
measureswereusedtoinformandtoengagethepublicinthepreparations.However,as
theactionplandevelopmentprocessstartedjusttwomonthsbeforeduedate,theprocess
wasrushed.Thishadasignificantinfluenceonthequalityofadvancenoticeand
consultationsaswellasontherangeofstakeholdersinvolved.
CountriesparticipatinginOGPfollowasetprocessforconsultationduringdevelopment
oftheirOGPactionplan.AccordingtotheOGPArticlesofGovernance,countriesmust:
•
•
•
•
Makethedetailsoftheirpublicconsultationprocessandtimelineavailable
(onlineatminimum)priortotheconsultation;
Consultwidelywiththenationalcommunity,includingcivilsocietyandthe
privatesector;seekadiverserangeofviewsand;makeasummaryofthepublic
consultationandallindividualwrittencommentsubmissionsavailableonline;
UndertakeOGPawareness-raisingactivitiestoenhancepublicparticipationin
theconsultation;and,
Consultthepopulationwithsufficientforewarningandthroughavarietyof
mechanisms—includingonlineandthroughin-personmeetings—toensurethe
accessibilityofopportunitiesforcitizenstoengage.
Afifthrequirement,duringconsultation,issetoutintheOGPArticlesofGovernance.
ThisrequirementisdiscussedintheSectionIIItitled,“Process:Actionplan
implementation”:
Countriesaretoidentifyaforumtoenableregularmulti-stakeholder
consultationonOGPimplementation—thiscanbeanexistingentityoranew
one.
Thisisdiscussedinthenextsection,butevidenceforconsultationbothbeforeand
duringimplementationisincludedhereandinTable1,foreaseofreference.
•
Table1:ActionPlanConsultationProcess
Phaseof
ActionPlan
OGPProcessRequirement
(ArticlesofGovernance
Section)
DidtheGovernmentMeet
ThisRequirement?
During
Development
Weretimelineandprocess
availablepriortoconsultation?
No
Wasthetimelineavailable
online?
Yes1
Wasthetimelineavailable
throughotherchannels?
Yes
Wasthereadvancenoticeofthe
consultation?
Yes
Howmanydaysofadvance
noticewereprovided?
30
Wasthisnoticeadequate?
No
14
Didthegovernmentcarryout
awareness-raisingactivities?
Yes2
Wereconsultationsheldonline?
Yes3
Werein-personconsultations
held?
Yes
Wasasummaryofcomments
provided?
Yes4
Wereconsultationsopenor
invitation-only?
Open
Placetheconsultationsonthe
IAP2spectrum.5
Collaborate
During
Wastherearegularforumfor
Implementation consultationduring
implementation?
Yes
Wereconsultationsopenor
invitation-only?
Open
Placetheconsultationsonthe
IAP2spectrum.
Involve
Advancenotice
TheactionplandevelopmenthadalatestartduetothegeneralelectionsinFebruaryMarch2014.NongovernmentalpartiesweredisappointedthatbyFebruary2014(i.e.
twomonthsbeforetheinitialdeadlinefortheactionplandevelopment)thegovernment
hadnotdecidedhowitwouldorganisetheactionplandevelopmentand,thus,hadnot
notifiednongovernmentalorganisationsoftheplans.Nongovernmentalorganisations
wereconcernedthattheywouldnotbeabletocontributetothediscussionsoract
togethertopromoteopengovernance.6
TheofficialpreparationsoftheactionplanstartedinApril2014,afterthenew
governmenthadenteredofficeandnamedaninstitutionresponsibleforOGP.However,
theprocesswasrushed(especiallytowardstheend)asthegovernmenthadtoapprove
theactionplanby15June2014.Therefore,thegovernmentplannedabouttwomonths
fortheentireprocess,whichimpactedthequalityofconsultationsaswellasthe
opportunitiesforpriornotification.Althoughthegovernmentwasabletoattractnew
nongovernmentalparticipants,thetimewasnotsufficienttoengageabroaderspectrum
ofnongovernmentalorganisations(e.g.outsideoftheOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable
(CSR))andthegeneralpublic.Additionally,assomeparticipantscommentedintheir
anonymousfeedbackonthedevelopmentprocess,thegovernmentdidnotprovide
enoughtimetodiscusssomeofthefundamentalquestionsrelatingtotheactionplan.7
Despitethelackoftime,somestillconsideredtheprocesstobewell-organised.8
Thefinaltimelineandplanforengagementfortheentireprocessofactionplan
developmentwasnotpublishedbeforetheconsultationswithstakeholdersbegan.For
instance,theOGPConsultationBoardmeetings,ledbytheSecretaryofState,startedon
17April2014,buttheofficialtimelineandengagementplanwasnotpublisheduntil21
April2014.9
Awareness-raising
Thegovernmentusedvariousmeasurestoraiseawarenessonthetopicoftheaction
plandevelopment.Forinstance,theGovernmentOfficemadepressreleases,
15
disseminatedarticlesandinformationthroughrelevantnetworks(e.g.theNetworkof
EstonianNon-profitOrganisationsandtheOpenEstoniaFoundation),andheld
meetings.ProactivecommunicationtodrawbroaderattentiontoOGPactionplan’s
priorities,commitments,andactivitieswasconsideredespeciallyimportantduringthe
publicconsultation.Duringthepublicconsultation,theGovernmentOfficealsoinformed
otherpartiessuchaslocalgovernmentassociations,othernongovernmental
organisations,andprofessionalassociationsabouttheprioritiesandcommitmentsfor
thenewactionplan.TheGovernmentOfficedidthisvianewsletterstomembersofthe
organisations,e-mails,andmeetings.Inaddition,theGovernmentOfficeofferedto
discussopengovernanceandtheOGPactionplanateventsappropriateforsuchtopics
anywhereinEstonia.10
ThePrimeMinisteralsocontributedtoraisingawarenessofOGP.Heparticipatedatan
eventheldbytheGovernmentOfficetointroducethenewOGPactionplantothe
generalpublicon6June2014.Duringtheevent,hestatedthatopenandinclusive
policy-makingisthenew“normalwayofdoingthings.”11About70peoplefromvarious
governmentandnongovernmentalorganisationswerepresent.Theintroductionofthe
actionplanbythePrimeMinister,apoliticalfigure,wasapositiveachievement.12
However,bythattime,thepublicconsultationprocesshadendedalready.The
promotioneventdidofferanopportunitytomakeconclusionsortogatherfeedbackon
theprocess,butthequalityofactionplancouldhavebenefittediftheHeadofthe
Governmenthadbroughtbroaderattentiontothetopicpriortoorduringthepublic
consultation.
Depthandbreadthofconsultation
Despitethechallengesdescribedabove,theGovernmentOffice,astheinstitution
responsibleforOGP,designedacollaborativeprocessforthedraftingoftheactionplan.
Avarietyofconsultationmeasuresonlineandin-person,asdescribedbelow,wereused
toinvolvestakeholdersindiscussionsandtocreateopportunitiesforthegeneralpublic
togiveinputtotheprocess.Comparedtostakeholderinvolvementduringthe
developmentofthepreviousOGPactionplan,thepreparationsof2014-2016action
planhadmorediverseinputofviews.Forexample,theprivatesectorgotinvolved
throughitsrepresentativebody,theEstonianChamberofCommerceandIndustry.The
employers’associationandtradeunionassociationalsoprovidedtheirviewpoints.
Variousstakeholdershadanimportantroleintheactionplandevelopment.For
instance,theOGPCSRgaveimportantinputthroughouttheprocess.Theconsultations
were,toagreatextent,basedontheOGPCSR’ssuggestionssubmittedtothe
GovernmentOfficeandtorelevantministriesinMarch2014,priortothebeginningof
officialpreparations.13Nevertheless,despitealloftheconsultationmeasurescreated,
thenumberofnewparticipantswasmodest.
TheOGPconsultationboard,aninformaladvisorygroupformedattheinvitationofthe
SecretaryofState,hadoneofthemostinfluentialrolesintheactionplandevelopment.
Theboardincludedsecretarygeneralsandofficialsfromministriesmostcloselyrelated
toOGP,aswellaspartnersfromnongovernmentalorganisations,includingtheOGPCSR
andmajorsocialpartners(twoemployers’associationsandtheTradeUnion
Confederation).14TheadvisorygroupaskedthepreviousIRMreviewertoparticipatein
itsmeetingstopresentrecommendationsoftheprogressreport.
ThisinformalOGPConsultationBoardhadthreemeetingstodiscussandmake
importantdecisionsthroughouttheactionplandevelopment.Atthefirstmeetingon17
April2014,theBoardfocusedonsettingpriorityareasandonnationalco-ordinationof
theactionplan.Atthesecondmeetingon30April2014,theBoarddiscussedthe
submittedproposalsaswellastheinitiativesandactivitiestoadvancetheselected
priorityareasproposedinthecourseofconsultationswiththeministries.Atthethird
16
meetingon28May2014,theBoardreviewedtherecommendationsmadeduringthe
publicconsultationandapprovedtheactionplanbeforeitwassenttothegovernment
forapproval.15Thefinalmeetingtookplaceonedayaftertheendofgeneralpublic
consultation.Stakeholderengagementcontinuedinthephaseoftheactionplan
implementationinasimilarformattotheOGPConsultationBoard,butunderanew
name:theOGPCo-ordinatingBoard.ContrarytotheConsultationBoard,theCoordinatingBoardwasformalised(seeSectionIII).
Inaddition,thematicmeetingstookplacewithrelevantministriesandnongovernmental
organisations.ThesemeetingsdiscussedtherecommendationsoftheOGPCSRandthe
activitiesthattheministrieswerealreadyplanning(relatedtoselectedactionplan
priorityareas).Parliamentalsowasconsulted,butitprovidedonlylimitedinput.Input
fromlocalgovernmentsfortheactionplan’sactivitiesalsowasrequested,butlocal
governments’participationwasmodest.Theactionplanpassedanofficialapproval
roundintherelevantministries.
Publicconsultationonthedraftactionplantookplacefrom9Mayto27May2014on
thecivicengagementwebsite(www.osale.ee)viatheInformationSystemofDraftActs
(EIS).16Someparticipantsconsideredthetimeavailableforconsultationasappropriate,
butsomedidnotmanagetofindtherightplaceandinformationforconsultation.Inthe
courseofpublicconsultation,feedbackwascollectedfromthegeneralpublicand
partiesinterestedinopengovernanceontheexpediencyandambitionofcommitments.
Proposalstomodifytheactivitiesalsoweregathered.Nongovernmentalpartnerswere
encouragedtoinitiateortoexecuteactivitiesinco-operationwiththepublicsector.The
publicconsultationstartdateshiftedfromtheinitiallyplanneddateof5May2014due
toalackofsufficientpreparationtime.Theextratimewasneededtogatheradditional
informationfromtheministriesandtostructureactivitiesaccordingtothe
commitments.Theministriescontinuedspecifyingtheiractivitiesduringthepublic
consultation.
Onecommenttothedraftactionplanwassubmittedviathewebsite(www.osale.ee).
Theother43commentsweresubmittedviae-mails.17Althoughthepublicconsultation
wasopenforinputfromallpeopleandorganisations,onlyasmallgroupof
nongovernmentalorganisationscontributed.Virtuallyallwhoparticipatedwerepartof
theOGPConsultationBoard.Theonlyexceptions,entitiesthatprovidedcomments
independently,weretheEstonianAssociationofSpatialPlannersandtheNational
FoundationofCivilSociety(whoisalsoamemberoftheOGPCSR).Thestakeholders
participatinginthedraftingprocessfoundtheprocessusefulandmeaningful,butthe
circleofstakeholdersinvolvedindraftingtheactionplancouldandshouldbewiderin
thefuture.
Basedonthesubmittedrecommendationsandcomments,theactionplanwasmodified
andimproved.Thecommentsweresummarisedinonetable,andthisfeedback(with
notesonwhyasuggestionwasacceptedorrejected)alongwiththeimprovedaction
planwassentviae-mailtothepartiesthathadmadesuggestionstotheactionplanfor
review.Althoughnotallproposedideaswereincludedintheactionplan,the
stakeholdersconsideredthefinaloutcomeasreasonable,takingintoaccountthe
availableresources.TheactionplanwassubmittedtotheGovernmentoftheRepublic
on4June2014,andtheGovernmentapprovediton12June2014atitsregular
session.18
Additionalinformation
Aftertheactionplan’sapproval,theGovernmentOfficeaskedparticipantstogive
feedbackontheactionplandevelopmentprocess.Thefeedbackwasgatheredfrom18
to30June2014,andtheresultswerepublishedontheGovernmentOffice’swebpage.
17
Therewerefiverespondents.Therespondentsrecommendedthatinthefuture,more
thematicmeetingsshouldbeorganised,awidergroupofstakeholdersshouldbe
included,theactionplanshouldbebasedmoreonanalysis,itshouldhavefewer
initiativesforwhichtheimpactandcostsareunknown,andthereshouldbemore
substantivediscussionswiththepartiesthatmakeproposalstotheactionplan.19
1“AvatudValitsemisePartnerlus,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1Nhqbh2
2“PeaministerRoivas:AvatudPoliitikaonUusNormaalsus,”VabariigiValitsus,6June2014,
http://bit.ly/1NHDHVD
3OsalusveebiHaldabRiigikantselei,AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseEestiRiiklikuTegevuskavaAvalik
Konsultatsioon[PublicConsultationinCivicEngagementWeb]byIlonaKään(Report,9May2014),
http://bit.ly/1mRv3K1
4“AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava2014-2016ProjektileLaekunudKommentaaridJa
EttepanekudTegevuskavaEttevalmistamiselt,AvalikultKonsultatsiooniltJaMinisteeriumidega
Kooskolastamiselt[SummaryofAllCommentsGivenDuringtheActionPlanDevelopment],”Riigikantselei,
11June2014,http://bit.ly/1NhqyZ2
5“IAP2SpectrumofPoliticalParticipation,”InternationalAssociationforPublicParticipation,
http://bit.ly/1kMmlYC
6Eesti,“VabauhendusteUmarlaudKogunebAvatudValitsemisePartnerlustArutama(2),”Uudised,6
February2014,http://bit.ly/1S6tAf8
7“TagasisideAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava2014-2016KoostamiseProtsessileKokkuvote
[SummaryofFeedbackontheActionPlanDevelopmentProcess],”Riigikantselei,1,http://bit.ly/1T6lvvH
8SummaryofFeedbackontheActionPlanDevelopmentProcess,1-2,http://bit.ly/1T6lvvH
9“AvatudValitsemisePartnerluse(AVP)2014.-2016.AastaTegevuskavaKoostamiseAJA-JaKaasamiskava
[ActionPlanDevelopmentTimelineandEngagementPlan],”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1pyLSyE
10TeelePehk,“AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava2014-2016OotabKommentaare,”Open
EstoniaFoundation,13May2014,http://bit.ly/1Zt7JnQ
11“PressReleaseofthePromotionEventoftheOGPActionPlan,”VabariigiValitsus,6June2014,
http://bit.ly/1NHDHVD
12SummaryofFeedbackontheActionPlanDevelopmentProcess,2,http://bit.ly/1T6lvvH
14ThegovernmentorganisationsthatparticipatedintheOGPConsultationBoardweretheGovernment
Office,theMinistryoftheInterior,theMinistryofForeignAffairs,theMinistryofFinance,theMinistryof
Justice,andtheMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications.Thenongovernmentalpartnerswerethe
OGPCivilSocietyRoundtable(theorganisations’leaderwasalsoarepresentativeoftheE-Governance
Academy),theNetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisations,theEstonianCo-operationAssembly,a
representativeofthePRAXISCentreforPolicyStudies,theEstonianChamberofCommerceandIndustry,
theEstonianTradeUnionConfederation,andtheEstonianEmployers’Confederation.
15SummariesofallOGPConsultationBoard’smeetingsareavailableontheGovernmentOffice’swebpage.
“2014-2016TegevuskavaKoostamiseProtsess,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1pInU4J
16“AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseEestiRiiklikTegevuskava[ConsultationInformationintheInformation
SystemofDraftActs],”EelnoudeInfosusteem,http://bit.ly/1PrEqu4;Kään,http://bit.ly/1mRv3K1
17“AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava2014-2016ProjektileLaekunudKommentaaridJa
EttepanekudTegevuskavaEttevalmistamiselt,AvalikultKonsultatsiooniltJaMinisteeriumidega
Kooskolastamiselt[SummaryofAllCommentsGivenDuringtheActionPlanDevelopment],”Riigikantselei,
11June2014,http://bit.ly/1NhqyZ2
18“ValitsusKiitisHeaksAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava,”Riigikantselei,12June2014,
http://bit.ly/1RgSV9L
19SummaryofFeedbackontheActionPlanDevelopmentProcess,http://bit.ly/1T6lvvH
18
III.Process:Actionplanimplementation
ThesecondactionplansawtheintroductionoftheOpenGovernmentPartnership(OGP)
Co-ordinatingBoard.Consistingofnearlyequalrepresentativesofgovernmentand
nongovernmentalorganisations,theCo-ordinatingBoardhadacentralroleincoordinating,monitoring,andevaluatingtheactionplanimplementation.TheOGPCivil
SocietyRoundtable(CSR)organisedanopencalltoselectnongovernmentalpartnersfor
theCo-ordinatingBoard,butunfortunatelytheprocessdidnotintroducenewparticipants
intotheframework.
Tostrengthennationalco-ordinationofOGPandtoensurepermanentparticipationof
stakeholders,theOGPCo-ordinatingBoardwasestablishedtooverseethe
implementationoftheactionplan.TheSecretaryofStatepresentedtheproposalto
createsuchaforum,consistingofmembersfromthegovernmentandnongovernmental
organisations,totheOGPConsultationBoardduringitsfirstmeetingon17April2014.
WiththeapprovaloftheOGPConsultationBoardandthegovernment,theCo-ordinating
BoardwasestablishedwithadirectiveoftheSecretaryofStateon26September2014.1
TheCo-ordinatingBoardwasdedicatedexclusivelytoimplementingOGPanditsrelated
decisionmakingprocesses.TheresponsibilitiesoftheCo-ordinatingBoardweretocoordinate,monitor,andevaluatetheimplementationoftheactionplan;toprovide
recommendationsandmakesubstantialdecisionsregardingthepartnership(e.g.ifan
actionplanactivityhadtobechanged);andtopromoteEstonia’sobjectivesand
activitiesinparticipatinginOGP.AtthefirstmeetingoftheCo-ordinatingBoard,the
GovernmentOfficesuggestedconsideringbroadeningtheCo-ordinatingBoard’s
competenceareabyincludingadditionaltasks,buttheywerenotapproved.2Onetask
wastodiscussprojectproposalspreparedbytheministriesorministrieswith
nongovernmentalorganisationstodevelopthecapacitiestoengageandtoparticipatein
policy-making.Itwasrejectedtoavoidconflictofinterestsbecausethepartieswanted
totakepartinprocurementstoimplementtheseprojects.Second,thetaskofcreating
anadvisoryboardongoodengagementpractices,wasnotapprovedbecausetheBoard
decidedtherewasnoneedforit.
TheSecretaryofStateledtheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard,whichconsistedof13members
fromthepublic,private,andthirdsectors.MembershipfollowedthemodeloftheOGP
SteeringCommittee,withhalfofthemembersrepresentinggovernmentagenciesand
theotherhalfconsistingofrepresentativesofnongovernmentalorganisations.3The
membershiptiltedinfavourofnongovernmentalrepresentation,astheyhadseven
seatscomparedtothesixseatsofgovernmentagencies.Representativesfromlocal
governmentandtheParliamentwerenotincluded.
Therepresentativesfromthegovernmentorganisationswerefixed.Theyincludedthe
SecretaryofStateasHeadoftheGovernmentOfficeandfivesecretarygeneralsfrom
ministrieswhosecompetencyareaswererelatedmostcloselytoOGP,i.e.theMinistryof
ForeignAffairs,theMinistryofFinance,theMinistryoftheInterior,theMinistryof
Justice,andtheMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications.
TheOGPCSRwasresponsibleforchoosingthenongovernmentalrepresentativesforthe
Co-ordinatingBoard.Basedonconsultations,itwasdecidedthatplaceswouldbe
allocatedtotwoofthethreemajorsocialpartners:theEstonianChamberofCommerce
andIndustry,theEstonianTradeUnionConfederation,andtheEstonianEmployers’
Confederation,whowasnotselected.FortheotherfiveCSOplaces,theCSRorganised
anopencompetitionthattookplacefrom1July2014to1August2014.4Asidefrom
submittinginformationontheirpriorworkonopengovernancetopics,noofficial
selectioncriteriawerepublishedforthiscompetition.ThefiveCSOrepresentativesin
19
theCo-ordinatingBoardarealsomembersoftheOGPCSR.ThefiveCSOrepresentatives
weretheE-GovernanceAcademy,theNetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisations,the
OpenEstoniaFoundation(theco-ordinatorforOGPCSR),thePRAXISCentreforPolicy
Studies,andtheEstonianCo-operationAssembly.
TheCo-ordinatingBoardmeetingstookplaceinperson.BecausetheCo-ordinating
Boardhadtomakedecisionsbyconsensus,5itwasexpectedtomeetapproximatelyonce
perquarter.6Theydidso,and,atthebeginning,theCo-ordinatingBoardgatheredin
personevenmorefrequently,everytwomonths.
ThecommitmentofgovernmentrepresentativeswithintheCo-ordinatingBoardtothe
implementationofOGPwasandremainssomewhatquestionable.Forinstance,basedon
theattendancesheets,whiletheSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofJusticeattendedall
meetings(asofthewritingofthisreport),theSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryof
Financedidnotattendanyofthemeetings(bythetimeofwritingthisreport).The
DeputySecretaryGeneralmostlyreplacedtheSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryof
Finance.TheSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications
attendedthefirstmeeting,butnobodyfromtheMinistryparticipatedinthefollowing
meetings.TheSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofForeignAffairsattendedonemeeting,
butwasrepresentedbyotherpublicadministratorsinthreeoftheotherfourmeetings.7
Atthesametime,thegovernmentpointedoutthatmanyCSOsalsomissedmeetings.
Fiveoutofsevennongovernmentalpartnersmissedatleastonemeeting.TheEstonian
ChamberofCommerceandIndustrymissedthreemeetings.Summariesofallmeetings
arepublishedontheGovernmentOffice’swebsite.8
TheIRMresearcher’sinterviewswithnongovernmentalstakeholdersrevealed
confusionandmisunderstandingregardingtheirrole.Throughouttheprocess,theyfelt
thatthegovernmentleftnongovernmentalpartnersresponsibleforensuringwider
participationofnongovernmentalorganisationsandthegeneralpublic.Buttherewere
noagreeduponformatsforinclusionorstructuresforsubmittingrecommendations.
Nongovernmentalorganisationsstakeholderswereconcernedaboutthistendency,
especiallyconsideringthedifferencesinresourcesandinsideknowledgebetweenthe
governmentandnongovernmentalorganisationstoconductwidespread
communicationandawareness-raisingactivities.
ThecurrentmembersoftheCo-ordinatingBoardaremandateduntiltheendofthe
implementationperiodoftheactionplan.Therefore,newmemberstotheCo-ordinating
Boardshouldbechosenin2016alongsidethepreparationsforthenewactionplan.9
1Riigikantselei,“DirectiveoftheSecretaryofStateEstablishingtheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard,”26
September2014,http://bit.ly/1UGCsyb
2Riigikantselei,“SummaryoftheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard’sMeetingon4November2014,”6January2015,
2-3,http://bit.ly/1pIrjAw;“AVPUmarlaud28.10.2014[SummaryoftheOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable’s
Meetingon28October2014],”AvatudValitsemisePartnerlus,2,http://bit.ly/1RyhCu4
3Riigikantselei,“Kokkuvote17.Aprillil2014RiigikantseleisToimunudAvatudValitsemisePartnerluse
Noupidamisest[SummaryoftheOGPConsultationBoard’sMeetingon17April2014],”3,17April2014,
http://bit.ly/1WIHDve
4“AVPUmarlaud[SummaryoftheOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable’sMeetingon25August2014],”Avatud
ValitsemisePartnerlus,http://avatudvalitsemine.ee/juhtimine-2/
5“SummaryoftheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard’sMeetingon4November2014,”http://bit.ly/1pIrjAw
6“SummaryoftheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard’sMeetingon4November2014,”3,http://bit.ly/1pIrjAw
7ThisisbasedontheattendancesheetsoftheCo-ordinatingBoard’smeetings.“AvatudValitsemise
Partnerlus,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/25nmKM4
8“SummaryoftheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard’sMeetingon4November2014,”3,http://bit.ly/1pIrjAw
20
IV.Analysisofactionplancontents
AllOGPparticipatinggovernmentsdevelopOGPcountryactionplansthatelaborate
concretecommitmentsoveraninitialtwo-yearperiod.GovernmentsbegintheirOGP
countryactionplansbysharingexistingeffortsrelatedtoopengovernment,including
specificstrategiesandongoingprogrammes.Actionplansthensetoutgovernments’
OGPcommitments,whichstretchpracticebeyonditscurrentbaseline.These
commitmentsmaybuildonexistingefforts,identifynewstepstocompleteongoing
reforms,orinitiateactioninanentirelynewarea.
Commitmentsshouldbeappropriatetoeachcountry’suniquecircumstancesandpolicy
interests.OGPcommitmentsshouldalsoberelevanttoOGPvalueslaidoutintheOGP
ArticlesofGovernanceandOpenGovernmentDeclarationsignedbyallOGP
participatingcountries.TheIndependentReportingMechanism(IRM)usesthe
followingguidancetoevaluaterelevancetocoreopengovernmentvalues:
Accesstoinformation
Commitmentsaroundaccesstoinformation:
•
Pertaintogovernment-heldinformation,asopposedtoonlyinformationon
governmentactivities.Asanexample,releasinggovernment-heldinformationon
pollutionclearlywouldberelevant,althoughtheinformationisnotabout
“governmentactivity”perse;
•
Arenotrestrictedtodatabutpertaintoallinformation.Forexample,releasing
individualconstructioncontractsandreleasingdataonalargesetof
constructioncontracts;
•
Mayincludeinformationdisclosuresinopendataandthesystemsthatunderpin
thepublicdisclosureofdata;
•
Maycoverbothproactiveand/orreactivereleasesofinformation;
•
Maycoverbothmakingdatamoreavailableand/orimprovingthetechnological
readabilityofinformation;
•
Maypertaintomechanismstostrengthentherighttoinformation(suchas
ombudsman’sofficesorinformationtribunals);
•
Mustprovideopenaccesstoinformation(itshouldnotbeprivilegedorinternal
onlytogovernment);
•
Shouldpromotetransparencyofgovernmentdecisionmakingandcarryingout
ofbasicfunctions;
•
Mayseektolowercostofobtaininginformation;
•
ShouldstrivetomeettheFiveStarforOpenDatadesign
(http://5stardata.info/).
Civicparticipation
Commitmentsaroundcivicparticipationmaypertaintoformalpublicparticipationorto
broadercivicparticipation.Theygenerallyshouldseekto“consult,”“involve,”
“collaborate,”or“empower,”asexplainedbytheInternationalAssociationforPublic
Participation’sPublicParticipationSpectrum(http://bit.ly/1kMmlYC).
Commitmentsaddressingpublicparticipation:
21
•
Mustopendecisionmakingtoallinterestedmembersofthepublic;suchforums
areusually“top-down”inthattheyarecreatedbygovernment(oractors
empoweredbygovernment)toinformdecisionmakingthroughoutthepolicy
cycle;
•
Canincludeelementsofaccesstoinformationtoensuremeaningfulinputof
interestedmembersofthepublicintodecisions;
•
Oftenincludetherighttohaveyourvoiceheard,butdonotnecessarilyinclude
therighttobeaformalpartofadecisionmakingprocess.
Alternately,commitmentsmayaddressthebroaderoperatingenvironmentthatenables
participationincivicspace.Examplesincludebutarenotlimitedtothefollowing:
•
Reformsincreasingfreedomsofassembly,expression,petition,press,or
association;
•
Reformsonassociationincludingtradeunionlawsornongovernmental
organisationlaws;
•
Reformsimprovingthetransparencyandprocessofformaldemocratic
processessuchascitizenproposals,elections,orpetitions.
Thefollowingareexamplesofcommitmentsthatwouldnotbemarkedasclearly
relevanttothebroaderterm,civicparticipation:
•
Commitmentsthatassumeparticipationwillincreaseduetopublicationof
informationwithoutspecifyingthemechanismforsuchparticipation(although
thiscommitmentwouldbemarkedas“accesstoinformation”);
•
Commitmentsondecentralisationthatdonotspecifythemechanismsfor
enhancedpublicparticipation;
•
Commitmentsthatdefineparticipationasinter-agencyco-operationwithouta
mechanismforpublicparticipation.
Commitmentsthatmaybemarkedof“unclearrelevance”alsoincludemechanisms
whereparticipationislimitedtogovernment-selectedorganisations.
Publicaccountability
Commitmentsimprovingaccountabilitycaninclude:
•
Rules,regulations,andmechanismsthatcallupongovernmentactorstojustify
theiractions,actuponcriticismsorrequirementsmadeofthem,andaccept
responsibilityforfailuretoperformwithrespecttolawsorcommitments.
Consistentwiththecoregoalofopengovernment,tobecountedas“clearlyrelevant,”
suchcommitmentsmustincludeapublic-facingelement,meaningthattheyarenot
purelyinternalsystemsofaccountability.Whilesuchcommitmentsmaybelaudableand
maymeetanOGPgrandchallenge,asarticulated,theydonotmeetthetestof“clear
relevance”duetotheirlackofopenness.Wheresuchinternal-facingmechanismsarea
keypartofgovernmentstrategy,itisrecommendedthatgovernmentsincludeapublic
facingelementsuchas:
•
Disclosureofnon-sensitivemetadataoninstitutionalactivities(following
maximumdisclosureprinciples);
•
Citizenauditsofperformance;
•
Citizen-initiatedappealsprocessesincasesofnon-performanceorabuse.
22
Strongcommitmentsaroundaccountabilityascriberights,duties,orconsequencesfor
actionsofofficialsorinstitutions.Formalaccountabilitycommitmentsincludemeansof
formallyexpressinggrievancesorreportingwrongdoingandachievingredress.
Examplesofstrongcommitmentsincludethefollowing:
•
Improvingorestablishingappealsprocessesfordenialofaccesstoinformation;
•
Improvingaccesstojusticebymakingjusticemechanismscheaper,faster,or
easiertouse;
•
Improvingpublicscrutinyofjusticemechanisms;
•
Creatingpublictrackingsystemsforpubliccomplaintsprocesses(suchascase
trackingsoftwareforpoliceoranti-corruptionhotlines).
Acommitmentthatclaimstoimproveaccountability,butassumesthatmerelyproviding
informationordatawithoutexplainingwhatmechanismorinterventionwilltranslate
thatinformationintoconsequencesorchange,wouldnotqualifyasanaccountability
commitment.Seehttp://bit.ly/1oWPXdlforfurtherinformation.
Technologyandinnovationforopennessandaccountability
OGPaimstoenhancetheuseoftechnologyandinnovationtoenablepublicinvolvement
ingovernment.Specifically,commitmentsthatusetechnologyandinnovationshould
enhanceopennessandaccountabilityby:
•
Promotingnewtechnologiesthatofferopportunitiesforinformationsharing,
publicparticipation,andcollaboration.
•
Makingmoreinformationpublicinwaysthatenablepeopletobothunderstand
whattheirgovernmentsdoandtoinfluencedecisions.
•
Workingtoreducecostsofusingthesetechnologies.
Additionally,commitmentsthatwillbemarkedastechnologyandinnovation:
•
Maycommittoaprocessofengagingcivilsocietyandthebusinesscommunity
toidentifyeffectivepracticesandinnovativeapproachesforleveragingnew
technologiestoempowerpeopleandpromotetransparencyingovernment;
•
Maycommittosupportingtheabilityofgovernmentsandcitizenstouse
technologyforopennessandaccountability;
•
Maysupporttheuseoftechnologybygovernmentemployeesandcitizensalike.
Notalle-governmentreformsimproveopennessofgovernment.Whenane-government
commitmentismade,itneedstoarticulatehowitenhancesatleastoneofthefollowing:
accesstoinformation,publicparticipation,orpublicaccountability.
Keyvariables
Recognizingthatachievingopengovernmentcommitmentsofteninvolvesamulti-year
process,governmentsshouldattachtimeframesandbenchmarkstotheircommitments
thatindicatewhatistobeaccomplishedeachyear,wheneverpossible.Thisreport
detailseachofthecommitmentsthecountryincludedinitsactionplan,andanalyses
themfortheirfirstyearofimplementation.
AlloftheindicatorsandthemethodusedintheIRMresearchcanbefoundintheIRM
ProceduresManual,availableathttp://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/about-irm.
Onemeasuredeservesfurtherexplanation,duetoitsparticularinterestforreadersand
usefulnessforencouragingaracetothetopbetweenOGP-participatingcountries:the
“starredcommitment.”StarredcommitmentsareconsideredexemplaryOGP
commitments.Toreceiveastar,acommitmentmustmeetseveralcriteria:
23
1. Itmustbespecificenoughthatajudgmentcanbemadeaboutitspotential
impact.Starredcommitmentswillhave"medium"or"high"specificity.
2. Thecommitment’slanguageshouldmakeclearitsrelevancetoopening
government.Specifically,itmustrelatetoatleastoneoftheOGPvaluesofaccess
toinformation,civicparticipation,orpublicaccountability.
3. Thecommitmentwouldhavea"transformative"potentialimpactifcompletely
implemented.
4. Finally,thecommitmentmustseesignificantprogressduringtheactionplan
implementationperiod,receivingarankingof"substantial"or"complete"
implementation.
Basedonthesecriteria,theEstonianactionplandidnotreceiveanystarred
commitments.
NotethattheIRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015toraisethebarformodelOGP
commitments.Undertheoldcriteria,acommitmentreceivedastarifitwasmeasurable,
clearlyrelevanttoOGPvaluesaswritten,ofmoderateortransformativepotential
impact,andsubstantiallyorcompletelyimplemented.Basedonthesecriteria,the
Estonianactionplanwouldhavereceivedsevenstarredcommitments:
2.5:Decidinguponandfundingparticipationprojects
2.6:Webtoolforpetitionstoparliamentandmunicipalities
4.1:Centralgovernmenttransactionsonthegovernmentportalforopen
spending
• 4.2:Localauthorities’transactionswithprivateentities
• 5.2:Registryofpublicservices
• 6.1:Opendataportal
• 6.2:Publiccompetitionsforopeningdata
Finally,thegraphsinthissectionpresentanexcerptofthewealthofdatatheIRM
collectsduringitsprogressreportingprocess.ForthefulldatasetforEstoniaandall
OGP-participatingcountries,pleaseconsultthe‘OGPExplorer,’availableat:
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/explorer/.
•
•
•
Generaloverviewofthecommitments
Inthecourseofpreparingthedraftactionplan,thegovernment-formedOGP
consultationboarddecidedtofocusonthreeareasasprioritiestowardsopen
governancegoals.Theprioritiesare:(1)openpublicpolicy-makingprocessesthat
includecitizens,(2)transparentstatebudgetandfinancialmanagement,and(3)citizencentredpublicservices.Thepresentchoiceofprioritiesisbroaderthantheframework
providedbythekeychallengesofOGP.Forexample,promotionofcitizens’participation
inpolicy-makingprocessesisnotamongthefivekeysubjectareas.Thefocuswas
extendedfromtheOGPkeyareastotheOGPcorevaluesasconcentrationonthelatter
offeredmorepossibilitiesandflexibilityinchoosingpriorityareas.1
Twoofthepriorityareas(opennessofpolicy-makingprocessesandtransparencyof
finances)arenew,whereasthepriorityareaofdevelopingpublice-serviceswascarried
overfromthepreviousactionplan.2Thecontinuationofthepriorityareawas
considerednecessaryduetotheremainingprogresstoachieveinthatarea.Ontheother
hand,thepriorityareaaddressingethicsofpublicofficialswasnotcontinuedastheplan
preparersarguedthatseveralmeasureshadcreatedasolidbasisforcontinuous
developmentoutsideoftheOGPframework(e.g.thenewanti-corruptionlaw,approving
theanti-corruptionstrategy,creatingCouncilofEthicsofOfficials,andanelectronic
databasefordeclarationsofeconomicinterests).3Nevertheless,activitiesintheaction
24
plansupportthepreventionofcorruption,forinstance,theactivitiesincreasing
transparencyofpublicsectorfinances.
Thethreepriorityareascontainsixcommitments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Toimprovetheaccessibilityofinformationneededforparticipation.
Toimproveopportunitiesforparticipationinthepublicpolicy-making
process.
Toincreasetheabilityofgovernmentinstitutionsandnongovernmental
partnerstoco-operate,toengagestakeholders,andtoparticipate.
Toincreasethetransparencyandcomprehensionofpublicfunds.
Toincreasethequalityofdevelopmentandprovisionofpublicservices.
Touseopendatawidely.
Indetermining“pivotalinsufficiencies”inopengovernancethateventuallyformedthe
basisfortheselectionoftheactionplan’spriorityareasandcommitments,various
sourcesofinputwereconsidered.InputincludedtheOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable’s
(CRS)suggestions,theOGPConsultationBoard,andtheIRMevaluationoftheprevious
actionplan.Oneofthelessonslearnedfromthefirstactionplanwasthatitlacked
ambitiousaimsandfocus.Thesecondplan’spreparersalsoacknowledgedthatthe
evaluationofthepreviousOGPactionplan’ssuccesswascomplicated,astheprevious
actionplandidnotcontainmilestonesorperformanceindicatorsformanyofthe
activitieswhichwereneededtoconductaproperevaluation.
Theambitionleveloftheactionplancanbeconsideredmodest.Manyoftheactivities
includedintheactionplanwereplannedalreadyorwereintheprocessofbeing
plannedbytheministries(withinotherstrategies).
Thecurrentactionplandoesnotincludeperformanceindicators.Twenty-three
activitieswereplannedwithinthesixcommitments.Eachactivityhasashort
description,informationonresponsibleinstitutions,co-operationpartners,andplanned
implementationtime.Moredetaileddescriptionsofactivitieswereapprovedafterthe
OGPCo-ordinatingBoardadoptedtheactionplan,andtheyarepublishedonthe
GovernmentOffice’swebsite.4
Itwasdecidedthattheactionplanwouldbeimplementedinaflexiblemanner,stageby
stage,allowingforadjustmentstotheactivitiesmid-implementationbasedonthe
evaluationoftheresults.ThisdecisionwasbasedonthepreviousIRMreport’snotethat
itmightbenecessarytomakechangestotheplannedactivities.5Thisalsooffersthe
chancetocompensateforinsufficientdiscussionofandrationalefordecisionsduetoa
lackoftimeduringtheactionplandevelopment.
Thefirstdraftoftheactionplan,developedinco-operationwithpartners,was
submittedforpublicdiscussioninMay2014.Basedonthefeedback,theactionplanwas
modified,andthesecondversionwassubmittedtothegovernment’ssession.Itwas
approvedinJune2014.6
TheIRMresearcherorganisedthe23activities,whichfallunderthethreeprioritiesand
sixcommitmentslistedabove,into11clusters.Theclusterswereformedonthebasisof
thesimilaritiesoftheactivities’content,outcomes,andtargetgroups.Eachofthe
clusterscoversactivitiesthathavesimilaroutcomesandcontent.Ifanyofthecriteria
weredifferent,aseparateclusterwasformed.Eachclusterrepresentsasetofactivities
(orasingleactivity)thatcouldbeanalysedwithinthesameframeworkandbasedon
similarargumentation,whileaddressingwhathappened,whetheritmattered,andhow
tomoveforwards.Thefinalclustersareasfollows:
1.
2.
Transparencyofpolicy-makingprocesses
Standardsforinformationrequests
25
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Earlyaccesstotaxpolicydecisions
Enhancingthequalityofgovernment-ledparticipationprocesses
Capacity-buildingsupportfornongovernmentalpartnersinpolicy-making
WebtoolforpetitionstotheParliamentandmunicipalities
Upgradinggovernmentportalforopenspending/budgettransparency
Guidelinesforcitizenbudgeting
Citizen-centredpublicservices
Accesstoe-servicesfornon-residents
Enhancingopendatasupplyandre-usebynongovernmentalactors
2
ThepreviousActionPlandidcontainactivitiesaimedatincreasingtheopennessofpolicy-makingbutthis
didnotformaseparatepriorityarea.
3Estonia’sActionPlan,3-4,http://bit.ly/1S6jUkU
4TheGovernmentOffice’swebsitedetailsactionplanactivities.“Tegevuskava2014-2016,”Riigikantselei,
http://bit.ly/1ZsYynd
6“2014-2016TegevuskavaKoostamiseProtsess,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1pInU4J
26
1:Transparencyofpolicy-makingprocess
Actionplancommitmenttext:1
1.1: Providing a better overview of the process of public policy making and legislation,
explainingandvisualizingit,describingtheparticipationopportunities
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:31December2014
1.2: Enhancing the user-friendliness of e-participation channels, integrating them where
possible, informing potential users of the opportunities provided by e-participation
channels
StartDate:1January2015
EndDate:30June2016
1.3: Providing content for the participation section of the new Government website,
standardizationofparticipation-relatedinformationofministriesanditspresentation
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:31October2014
2.1:Makinginformationabouttheproceedingsandparticipationopportunitiesaccessible
inanearlystageofthepolicymakingprocess
StartDate:1October2014
EndDate:31December2015
EditorialNote:TheIRMresearcherclusteredtheactivitiesbasedontheirsimilar
purposeandcommontheme.Allofthefouractivitiessupportthequalityand
transparencyofpolicy-making.Theseactivitiescombinedareexpectedtoprovidea
betteroverviewoftheprocessofpublicpolicy-makingandlegislationandtouse
possibleoutcomestodeveloptheparticipationchannelsandtopublishinformation
aboutpolicy-makingatanearlierstage.Finally,theenddatesoftwoactivitieswere
changed.Thenewenddateforactivity1.1wasAugust2015,andthenewenddatefor
1.3wasOctober2015.
ResponsibleInstitution(s):GovernmentOffice
SupportingInstitution(s):Ministries,E-GovernanceAcademy,Praxis,otherthirdsector
organisations,OGPRoundtable,EnterprisePulse,interestedparties
1.1. Visualisation of
the policy-making
process
✔
✔
✔
1.2. Upgrading
participation
channels
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
1.3. Improving
government
websites
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
2.1. Early notice on
policy-making
processes
✔
✔
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
None
Potential Impact
Tech. and innov. for
transparency and
accountability
Public accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
Access to information
Specificity
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
27
Whathappened?
Thisclusterofactivitiesaimstoimprovepublicparticipationbycreatingbetteraccess
toinformationaboutopportunitiesforparticipation,especiallyintheearlystageofthe
policyplanningprocesses.Itcontainseffortstoenhancenongovernmentalpartners’
understandingaboutvariouspolicy-makingandlegislationprocesses.Althoughgeneral
andbasicchannelsforparticipationsuchasthecentrale-participationportal
(http://www.osale.ee/)werecreatedyearsago,theyhavebeenlargelyunderused.For
example,fromAugusttoDecember2015,ithadfivedocumentsforpublicconsultation,
andtheyreceivedonly15comments.Accordingtothefocusgroups,themainproblem
withthischannelisthatitgathersalotofinadequatefeedback,makingthechannel
irrelevantbothforinstitutionsandforfeedbackproviders.Forthisreason,thefeedback
oftenisrequestedandprovidedthroughotherchannelssuchasviaspecialemails,
meetings,etc.Thus,onechallengefacedbythegovernmentistocreateandimplement
user-friendlyparticipationopportunitiesandtopromotepublicparticipationatan
earlierstagethaniscurrentlyavailable.
Thefirstactivity(1.1)aimstoprovideabetteroverviewoftheprocessofpublicpolicymakingandlegislation,explainingandvisualizingit,anddescribingtheparticipation
opportunities.ThevisualisationismadeavailableontheGovernmentOffice’swebpage.
TheIRMresearcherfoundthisactivitytobecompleted.Visualisationofpolicy-making
andlegislativeprocesswaspreparedandintroducedtopartners.2
Thesecondactivity(1.2)aimstoenhancetheuser-friendlinessofe-participation
channels,integratingthemwherepossibleandinformingpotentialusersofthe
opportunitiesprovidedbye-participationchannels.Toachievethegoal,theactivity
seekstomaptheproblemswithexistinge-participationchannelssuchastoofewpublic
consultations,toolittlefeedbackfromthepublic,technicallynotupdated,etc.The
activityalsoaimstoimplementrecommendationsonhowtoimprovethechannels.So
far,whilethereportforimprovingthechannelswasfinished,3thechannelshavenot
beenenhancedorintegrated.Thus,theIRMresearcherfoundthelevelofcompletionof
thisactivitytobesubstantial.Boththegovernmentandnongovernmentalorganisations
agreethattheactivitieshaveprogressedaccordingtothetimeframe.
Thethirdactivity(1.3)aimstostandardisethewaysinwhichparticipation-related
activitiesarepresentedonthewebpagesofallministries.Italsoaimstoprovidelinks
fromthegovernment’sgeneralsitetothewebpagesofallseparateministrieswitha
newsubsectiontitled“participation.”Toachievethegoal,thegovernmentwebsite
gathersthestandardisedinformationaboutparticipationprocessesandopportunities
fromtheministries.Sofar,theformandstructureoftheparticipationsectionofthe
governmentwebsitewasdevelopedandagreeduponbytheministries.The
developmentoftechnicalsolutionsandthepromotionofthepending“participation”
subsectionsarestillplannedactivitiesforthefuture.TheIRMresearcherfoundthelevel
ofcompletionofthisactivitytobelimitedbecausetheprocessisstillfarfromthefinal
outcome.Untilnow,theministriesdonothavestandardisedweb-sectionson
“participation;”andthegeneralwebpageoftheGovernmentOfficedoesnothavean
updated“participation”section.BasedontheIRMresearcher’sinterviewsandfocus
groups,boththegovernmentandnongovernmentalorganisationsagreewiththelevel
ofcompletion,andtheyhopethattheenhancedsystemwillimprovetheusageof
participationchannels.
Thefourthactivity(2.1)aimstomaketheinformationabouttheproceedingsand
participationopportunitiesaccessibleatanearlystageofthepolicy-makingprocess.To
achievethegoal,informationaboutwhenandwhereimportantdecisionswillbemade
aswellasthedocumentsrelevantformakingandexplainingthedecisionsneedtobe
madeavailable.Opportunitiestotakepartinpublicdiscussionsalsoneedtobecreated.
28
Finally,ministrieshavetodeveloptheiractivitiesonparticipationinsuchawaythat
theyinformpotentialstakeholdersaboutimportantinitiativesatanearlystage.Sofar,
discussionswithdifferentstakeholdershavetakenplaceonwhatcanandshouldbe
implementedtoenhanceparticipationopportunitiesatanearlystageofthepolicymakingprocess.Theproposedsolutionsbyvariousstakeholderswereapproved.For
example,theministries’yearlyworkplanswillbeintroducedatthebeginningofthe
year.TheGovernmentOfficestillneedstofindadditionalfundingfortheproposed
solutionsconcerningtheparticipationportal(eelnoud.valitsus.ee).Afterthat,they
wouldbeabletostartpublicprocurementprocessestofindanIT-developertoworkon
theproposedtechnicaladvancements.TheIRMresearcherfoundthelevelofcompletion
ofthisactivitytobelimitedbecauseenhancementshavebeenplannedandagreedupon,
buthavenotbeenfundedorimplementedyet.Otherstakeholdersagreedwiththe
assessment.Additionally,basedontheIRMresearcher’sfocusgroups,civilsociety
organisations(CSOs)hopethatpossibleadvancementscouldactivatemoremeaningful
publicparticipation.
Diditmatter?
AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,thepotentialimpactofactivities1.1,1.2,and1.3is
minor.Byonlycreatingabetteroverviewofparticipationopportunities,theactivities
mainlytrytoenhancenongovernmentalpartners’understandingofpolicy-makingand
legislationprocess,buttheydonotmotivatepartnersenoughtoparticipate.Bycontrast,
thepotentialimpactofactivity2.1ismoderatebecausemakinginformationaboutthe
proceedingsandparticipationopportunitiesaccessibleattheearlystagesofthepolicymakingprocesscanraisethepublicinterestandparticipation.4
SomeconsultedCSOsexpressedtheviewthat,takingintoaccountEstonia’scontextof
relativelystronginvolvementinopengovernmentissues(e.g.legalframework,
guidelines,activethirdsector,etc.),thetransparencyofpolicy-makingprocesshasnot
improvedmuch.MoreactiveCSOsarguedthatonpaperandinpolicydocuments,the
situationmighthaveimproved,butinrealitythereislittleinterest,time,andenergy
fromthepublicsectortoworkontransparencyofpolicy-makingprocesses.Therehave
beencaseswhereadhocpolicydecisionsweremadewithoutpriorgeneraldiscussion
andwithoutanexistingappropriatepolicyorpoliticalframework.Forexample,public
discussionaboutpublicfinancingforprivateschoolsandannualsalariesfortopfive
artistsandwritersoccurredafterthedecisionsweremade.5
Civilsocietyandacademicorganisationsoftenexpressedtheviewthatinrealitythekey
issueisempowerment.Theybelievethatthestakeholdersmightbeinvitedtotakepart
inthediscussions,butthattheyarenotgivenenoughpoweroverthefinaldecisions.
Accordingtothem,thefeedbacktheygiveoftenisnottakenintoaccountorisrequested
toolateorwithalimitedtimeframe.Inmanycases,theinvolvementprocessesareled
byyoungandinexperiencedcivilservantswhodonothaveenoughpowerorstatusto
proceedwiththeseideaswithintheorganisationorknowthepoliticalandeconomic
frameworkand,thus,arenotfamiliarwiththestrategiesorpreviousdiscussions.On
onehand,capacity-buildingoninvolvementwithinpublicorganisationhasnot
happenedasmuchasonewouldexpect.Ontheotherhand,empoweringcitizensmight
alsomeanthatpublicinstitutionswillsummonconflictingviews,whichcertainly
requiremoretime,energy,andresourcestomakedecisions.
Nevertheless,therearepositivelocal-levelcasesaroundthecountrythatoccurred
independentlyofOGP,butthatcouldbeconsideredspill-overeffectsoftheabove
mentionedactivities.Forinstance,theRõugemunicipalitysuccessfullyimplementedan
opengovernmentactionplanforayear.Thisisjustonecasefromwhichthecentral
governmentcouldlearn.
29
Whilecomparingthetwomaine-channelsforparticipationinEstonia,most
stakeholdersinterviewedbytheIRMresearcherhadstrongerfaithinwww.osale.ee
thaneelnoud.valitsus.ee.Thewebsite(www.osale.ee)isaplatformforsendingone’s
ideasandproposalstothegovernmentoffice,gatheringsupportanddigitalsignatures
fortheproposedideas,commentingondraftlaws,andlookingupandfindinglawsand
strategicdocuments.Thecurrentactionplanismorefocusedoneelnoud.valitsus.ee,a
platformforco-ordinationandpublicdiscussionofdraftlawsandfindinglawsand
strategicdocuments.Nongovernmentalorganisationsconsiderthelatterplatformtobe
too“administration-centred.”Theycorrelateitwiththelogicofpublicadministrators,
butnotwithgeneralusers.
Thegovernmentarguesthatthesesystemshavecomplementarywhiledifferent
purposes.Thesiteeelnoud.valitsus.eeistheofficialsystemforprocessingalllegislation
adoptedonthegovernmentlevel,whilewww.osale.eeisforanyoneinterestedintaking
partinpolicy-making.Thegovernmentbelievesthatthesearedifferent“vehicles”with
differentpurposesandbuild-ups.
Movingforward
First,pendingactivitiesstillshouldbecarriedoutintheremainingimplementingperiod
ofthecurrentactionplan:developingtheparticipationchannelsaccordingtothe
recommendations(1.2),developingtheparticipationsectiontechnicalsolutionfor
governmentwebsite(1.3),andfindingfundingopportunitiesforimplementingearlystageparticipationsolutions(2.1).
Inaddition,CSOsconsultedbytheIRMresearcherproposedthefollowingadditional
stepsbeconsideredonthistopicforthenextactionplan:
•
•
•
•
•
Openmorepossibilitiesforstakeholderinvolvementintheearlystagesofpolicy
planning;
Givestakeholdersmoredecisionmakingpowersoverpolicyplanningactivities;
Informpotentialusersofthenewopportunitiesavailableaftertheenhancement
ofthee-participationchannels;
Concentratemoreonimprovingtheusabilityoftheexistingsystems,ratherthan
creatingnewchannelsorsubsectionsinthefuture;and,
Focusmoreontransparencyofpolicy-makingatthelocallevelbecausecurrent
activitiesarefocusedonthecentralgovernment.
1Whilethedescriptionoftheactivitiesintheactionplanislimited,theIRMresearcherdrewonadditional
informationfromtheMid-termProgressReport,theGovernmentOffice’swebsite,additionalanalyses,and
interviews.TheIRMresearcherfollowedthesameinformation-gatheringprocessforallotherclusters.
2“PoliitikakujundamiseJaOigusloomeProtsess[VisualisationofPolicy-MakingandLegislativeProcess],”
Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1Rluzs1
3PraxisCenterforPolicyStudiesandPulse,OsalusveebiJaValitsuseEelnõudeInfosüsteemiKasutatavuse
AnalüüsbyHilleHinsberg(Report,April2015),http://bit.ly/22wiqek
4PoliitikauuringuteKeskusPraxis,KaasamineOtsustetegemiseProtsessibyReesiLepa,EveliIlling,Aare
Kasements,ÜlleLepp,andEppKallaste(Report,Tallinn,2004),16,http://bit.ly/1RzHv38
5“ErakoolidKoostasidHaridusministeeriumileVastukaaluksAlternatiivseSeaduseelnou(17),”Uudised,22
October2015,http://bit.ly/1XNu4Lb;“KulliTaro:KirjanikeJaKunstnikeAsetamineValjapooleTeisteJaoks
ToimivaidReegleidSuvendabKibestumist,”Uudised,6November2015,http://bit.ly/22wj1g7
30
2:Standardforinformationrequests
1.4:Developingaunifiedformforthesubmissionofmemoranda,explanationrequestsand
informationrequestsofthecitizenstopublicauthoritiesthroughtheeesti.eeportal.
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:30January2016
ResponsibleInstitution(s):MinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications
Co-operationpartner(s):TheStateInformationSystemAuthority(eesti.ee),Data
ProtectionInspectorate(owneroftheformtobecreated),publicsectorinstitutions
(formusers),citizens,andentrepreneurs(formtesters)
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Whathappened?
Themainpurposeofthisactivityistoenhancetheusabilityofthewww.eesti.eeportal.
Italsoaimstoharmonisedifferente-formsandtodevelopaunifiedformforthe
submissionofmemorandaandcitizeninformationrequestsofpublicauthorities.2Itis
expectedthattheportalshouldincreasethenumberofinstitutionsthatusee-forms.Eformsincludeapplicationsandformsthatcitizenscanfileintheelectronicsystems
insteadofonpaper.Theywillsavecitizens’andadministrators’time,logistical
resources,paper,etc.
InthepreviousOGPperiodof2012-2013,anactivityfocusedonenhancingthe
functionalityandusabilityofwww.eesti.eeportal.Forexample,theoption“MyThings”
wasadded,whichhelpedtopersonaliseeachuser’shistory,searches,andapplications.
Becausethedevelopmentoftheportalwasanimportantactivityforthestakeholders,
therewasaclearneedtocontinueitsdevelopment.3
Atfirsttherewerefourmainco-operationpartnersresponsiblefortheactivity:the
MinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications,theEstonianDataProtection
Inspectorate,theMinistryoftheInterior,andtheInformationSystemAuthority.But,
duringtheprocess,severaladditionalpartnerswereinvited:theDefenceResources
Agency,theAssociationofEstonianCities,andothers.4Thiswasbasedontherealisation
thatseveralinstitutionsusedifferente-forms,anditwouldbemorebeneficialtoexpand
theco-operationpartnershipwhiletryingtoimproveandtomergemostoftheforms.
TheDeputyDirectoroftheStateInformationSystemAuthority,MargusSimson,
commentedinMay2014that,forthelastsevenyears,thedevelopmentofe-serviceshas
beenonstandby,andthattherewasaneedforonegeneralportal,whichcouldunify
hundredsofe-serviceenvironments.5TheEesti.eeportalfulfilledthatneed,but
inefficiencieswithe-formsremained.Forexample,citizenswereaskedtofillinthe
currentdatemanuallyonthee-forms,althoughthetechnologicalsolutionscouldenterit
automatically.
31
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
High
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Medium
Specificity
Bytheendof2014,thenavigationsystemandprototypesforthenewformswere
createdandtested.Duringtheprocess,itbecameclearthatthereweretoomanyforms
withsimilarpurposes(usingslightlydifferentwordingorstructure)withinthe
www.eesti.eeportal.Afterthefirststageofanalysiswasfinished,areportbroughtout
differentpossibilitiesforunificationandsuggestionsforthefuture.Thethirdstageof
thisactivitywillbetoapplythechangessuggestedinthesecondstageandtoharmonise
thee-forms.ThisstageisexpectedtobecompletedinJanuary2016,dependingon
availablefinances.6
TheIRMresearcher,nongovernmentalorganisations,andtherepresentativesofpublic
organisationsconsiderthisactivitytobesubstantiallycompleteasofJune2015.The
governmentcompletedthefirstandsecondstagesofthisactivityaccordingtothetime
frame,buttheyarestillworkingonthethirdstage,applyingtheadditionalchangesthe
StateInformationSystemAuthorityandpublicsectorinstitutionssuggested.The
governmenthasnotcreatedastandardforinformationrequestsyet.
Diditmatter?
AccordingtoapollconductedbyTNSEmor,aresearchagency,thegeneralawarenessof
thewww.eesti.eeportalin2014wasat82percent,14percenthigherthanin2012.
Althoughgeneralawarenessofwww.eesti.eeportalrose,itspopularityisconcentrated
amonghighly-educatedpeople.Mostpeoplewhoarenotawareoftheportalareolder
peoplebetweentheagesof50and64,minorities,habitantsinmunicipalitiesofLääne-
andIda-Virumaa,andpeoplewhohaveonlycompulsoryeducation.Fourteenpercentof
thepeoplequestionedusedwww.eesti.eeportalduringthelastmonth,whichisnot
significantly(threepercent)higherthanin2012.7
Althoughthee-formapplicationworksandshouldsatisfyusers'needs,therearestill
someproblems.Forexample,usersstillhavedifficultiesinsearchingforcertainforms.
Moreover,someofthee-formsarenotaccessible,andnotallpublicservantshave
sufficientabilityorknowledgetonavigatee-formsande-services.Someofthee-forms
requiresearchingforinformationfromtheStateInformationManagementSystem,
whichishardtouse.Additionally,e-formsoftenarehardtovisualiseortestforpublic
serviceproviders.8Thisshowsthatthee-formsneedtobemoreuser-friendlybothfor
publicinstitutionsandforcitizens.
Consultedcivilsocietyorganisations(CSOs)didnotbelievethisactivityhadhigh
importance,andmostofthemwerenotawareoftheactivity.Somepublic
administratorsstatedthatthisactivityshouldhavebeenleftoutoftheactionplan
becauseitdoesnotofferadditionalvalue.Theybelieveditisaminortechnicalissue
takingattentionawayfromrealissues.Whilethedevelopmentofaunifiedformisa
positivestepintherightdirectionanditwillhavesomeimpact,thecommitmentdoes
adequatelyaddressthemostsignificantissuesofcitizenaccesstoinformationrequests
suchasusability,user-friendliness,etc.
Movingforward
AsthePricewaterhouseCooperssuggests,itwouldbebettertoshiftawayfromtheold
databasesystemtomoremoderntechnology.Specifically,someoftheapplicationslike
e-formsanduseradministrationarebasedonanoutdateddevelopmentframe.Thenew
systemneedsimprovedfunctionalitysuchasprogrammingvariousfunctionsseparately
andexclusivelyfordesignatedpurposes.Thegovernment’sself-assessmentreport
mentionsinstitutionstendencynottoagreewiththeunifiedandstandardisedform
becauseofthepotentialriskof‘lossofidentity.’9Nevertheless,itismoreconvenientfor
end-userstohavefewerversionsofthee-formsandtobeabletosendthesameform,
suchasaninformationrequest,todifferentinstitutions.
32
However,becausetheaddedvalueofincludingthisactivityintheOGPactionplanisnot
high,similarlow-impactimprovementactivitiescouldbeleftoutfromfutureaction
plans.
interviews.TheIRMresearcherfollowedthesameinformation-gatheringprocessforallotherclusters.
3Hinsberg,SõltumatuHindamisaruanne,30-31.
ontheImplementationoftheActionPlanbytheGovernmentOffice(Tallinn,2015),14,http://bit.ly/1ShJ5Ds
5“Simson:E-riikPeabMuutumaInimeseJaoksLihtsamaks,”RiigiInfosüsteemiAmet,http://bit.ly/1UN1JWf
6Riigikantselei,EestiTegevuskavaAvatudValitsemisePartnerlusesOsalemisel2014-2016:Tegevuskava
TäitmiseVahearuanne(Report,Talllinn[sic],2015),15-16,http://bit.ly/1Mml9Qe
7TNSEmor,KodanikeRahuloluRiigiPooltPakutavateAvalikeE-Teenustega2014(Report,Tallinn,2014),4,
145-146,http://bit.ly/1Uf58OF
8PricewaterhouseCoopersAdvisors,E-VormideAnalüüs,ÜhtlustatudMudelJaParendusettepanekud:
Lõpparuanne(Report,Tallinn,2015),27-29,http://bit.ly/1T8HeDq
ontheImplementationoftheActionPlanbytheGovernmentOffice(Tallinn,2015),17-18,
http://bit.ly/1ShJ5Ds
33
3:Earlyaccesstotaxpolicydecisions
2.3:Itisrecommendedthatimportantbudgetingandtaxationpolicydecisionsbemadein
spring,togetherwiththeBudgetStrategy
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:30June2016
EditorialNote:Theenddateoftheactivitywaschanged,sinceitwascompletedbyJuly
2015.
ResponsibleInstitution(s):MinistryofFinance
SupportingInstitution(s):TaxandCustomsBoard,ministries
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Complete
✔
Whathappened?
Theactivityaimstoprovideearlyaccesstotaxpolicydecisionsbymakingimportant
budgetingandtaxationpolicydecisionsinspringwiththeBudgetStrategy.Ifany
additionalbudgetingortaxationdecisionsaremadewiththestrategyinspring—before
theParliamentbreaksforsummer—theywillbeanalysedandproposedwithinthe
samepoliticalpriorities.Inthisway,thequalityofpreparingstatebudgetincreases,and
publicinstitutionscanplantheiractivitiesandtheiravailableresourcesbetter.Withat
leastsixmonthsbetweenmakingtaxationdecisionsandthedatewhenthedecisions
comeintoforce,thegeneralpublicwouldhavemoretimetodiscussandtobecome
moreawareofthepossibleeffectsoftaxationdecisionsonsociety.
Untilnow,thetaxpolicyinEstoniahasnotinvolvedsufficientpublicparticipation.The
publicoftenisinformedabouttaxpolicychangesonlywhentheyareabouttocomeinto
force.Whileitiscommonforstakeholderstomakesometaxpolicyproposals,oftenthis
istoolatetohavesubstantialimpactonchangingorenhancingtheplanningor
implementationprocesses.Thebusinesssectorandtheirassociationsrepeatedlyhave
expresseddissatisfactionwiththecurrentpractice.Theybelieveitseemstofocuson
fillingbudgetgaps(i.e.introducingnewtaxesorincreasingcurrenttaxestocreate
additionalrevenuethatthepublicsectorlackstobalancethestatebudget),ratherthan
strategicandsustainabletaxpolicy.
TheEstonianParliamentadoptedanupdatedTaxationActthatrequiresatleastsix
monthsbetweenchangesintheTaxationActandenforcementofthechanges.2Thestate
representatives,civilsocietyorganisations(CSOs),andtheIndependentReporting
Mechanism(IRM)researcherfindthiscommitmenttobecomplete.3ConsultedCSOs
foundhurriedtaxdecisionsverydisturbingandwelcomedtheminimalperiodofsix
monthsbetweenthedecisionandenforcement.
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
High
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Medium
Specificity
34
Diditmatter?
AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,theactivity’spotentialimpactisminor.Itundoubtedly
willincreasepublicdiscussionsabouttaxpolicyissues.However,allowingmoretimeto
adjusttotaxpolicydecisionsmightnothelptoachievestrategicandsustainabletax
policyortoimprovetransparencyinstatefinances.Asnongovernmentalorganisations
pointedoutinfocusgroups,whiletheremaybemoreopportunitiesfortheoretical
involvementandpublicdiscussion,theStateBudgetActislessandlesscomprehensive
everyyear.Increasinglyitfollowstheinternallogicoffinancialandfiscalprinciples
withinpublicsector,buttheStateBudgetActisnotforthegeneralpublic.Oneexample
thatwasmentionedoftenwasawebpagecreatedbythenongovernmentalorganisation
Praxis,whichvisualiseseffectivelythelogicofpublictaxesandbudgets.Ifthe
governmentaimsforhigherinvolvementintaxpolicydecisions,theyshouldfirstshare
information,includingontheStateBudgetAct,inanunderstandableway.
Thelocalgovernmentalsocomplainedaboutthecommitmenttoearlyaccesstotax
policiesbecauseoftentheyreceivethefinaldecisionabouttheirbudgetinFebruary,
afterthestartofthefiscalyear.
Movingforward
Thistopicisripeforopengovernmentreforms,sotheIRMresearcherrecommendsthat
futureactionplanscontinuetoaddressthetaxprocess.However,tomakecommitments
morepotentiallyimpactful,stakeholderswillneedtoputmoreemphasisonconcrete
participatoryactivitiestoopenthedecisionmakingprocessesaroundtaxpoliciesat
earlierstagesofthebudgetingprocessandmoreeffectively.Forexample,whenthe
BudgetingStrategyismadepublic,citizensandthebusinesssectorcoulddiscussand
sharetheirideasabouttaxpolicymoreactively,suchasthroughspecific
institutionalisedandpubliclyknownchannelsforparticipationintaxprocesses,rather
thanadhocorinformalchatsremovedfromthedecisionmaking.
CSOsconsultedbytheIRMresearcheralsopointedoutthattheStateBudgetActshould
focusmoreonclearlanguageandoneaseofreading,thanonthefiscallogicofthe
centralgovernment.Stakeholderscouldconsiderbroadeningorextendingthecitizen
budgetingefforts,discussedbelow,toincludetaxpolicy.TheOpenGovernmentGuide
containsavarietyofotherpracticalsuggestionsforcommitmentsonparticipationintax
andbudgeting.4
informationfromtheMid-termProgressReport,fromtheGovernmentOffice’swebsite,additionalanalyses,
andinterviews.Thesameprincipleappliesforotherclusters.
2RiigiTeataja,TaxactionAct,§41,1July2015,http://bit.ly/1Uf5Ewi
3Seethelistofinterviewedstakeholdersinthemethodologyandsourcessection.
4OpenGovernmentGuide,http://www.opengovguide.com/topics/budgets/
35
4:Enhancingthequalityofgovernment-ledparticipationprocesses
2.2:Promotingofinitiativesthatwouldenablediscussionaboutprincipalpolicychoicesin
anearlystageofthepolicymakingprocess
StartDate:1March2015
EndDate:30June2016
2.4:Introducingtogovernmentinstitutionsvariouspossibilitiesandmethodsoffeedback
inordertoachievebetterresultsinpolicymaking,theirimplementation
StartDate:1December2014 EndDate:30June2016
3.1:Creatingguidelinesformakingparticipationmethodsandbestpracticesmorereadily
availableforthosewhocarryoutprocesses,inaccordancewithpolicymakingsituations
(e.g.aninteractivewebsitewithexamplesandmethods)
EndDate:30June2016
EditorialNote:TheIRMresearcherclusteredtheseactivitiestogetherbecausethe
commitmentlistsactivitiesthatmaybedescribedasearlystageparticipationinpolicymaking,betterfeedbackmechanisms,andinteractiveguidelinesforpublicparticipation
methods.Further,whileactivities2.2and2.3aresimilar,2.2targetsgeneralpolicymakingprocesses,whereasactivity2.3specificallytargetsthetimingoftaxpolicy
decisions.
ResponsibleInstitution(s):GovernmentOffice
Co-operationPartner(s):MinistryofJustice,MinistryoftheInterior,otherministries,
nongovernmentalorganisations,otherstakeholders
2.2. Participation in
early-stage policymaking
2.4. Better
feedback
mechanisms
✔
✔
3.1. Civil servant
guidelines for
participation
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Whathappened?
Thefirstactivity(2.2)oftheclusteraimstostrengthentheoverallpolicy-making
process(especiallyinearlierstages)andtoinvolvemoreparticipantsinpolicy
discussions.TheGovernmentOfficestatesthatministriesoftenbelatedlyinvolvetarget
groupsandthepublicinpolicy-makingprocesses.2Accordingtotheactionplan,the
focusisonincreasinggreenandwhitepapers(conceptualdocumentsaboutcertain
policyareas),withtheintentionthatthiswillleadtoraisedaccessibility,usability,and
awarenessofallstakeholders.
36
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
Specificity
Anumberofimprovementsweremade:ministriesarepublishingtheirinstitutional
actionplanscoveringtheirmainactivitiesonayearlybasis.Someministriesorganise
eventsonceayeartointroducetheirwork-plan.Differenttrainingcoursesandseminars
onhowtoinvolvestakeholdersareofferedforcivilservants.In2013,Estonia’sgreen
paperontheorganisationofpublicserviceslaidoutthebasicprinciplesfordeveloping
services,butitdidnotprovidespecificguidelinesforthedesignortheprovisionof
services.Accordingtothegovernment’sself-assessmentreport,theyareanalysingthe
usageofdifferentpapers(greenandwhite)andsupplementingtherecommended
guidelines.3InApril2016,theywanttosupplementthecurrentguidelines,andfrom
May2016toJune2016,thegovernmentwantstostartinformingactivities.Therefore,
theIRMresearcherassessesthecompletionofthisactivityassubstantial.
Thesecondactivity(2.4)aimstointroducefeedbackforparticipantsonpolicy-making
processessuchashowtheircommentsweretakenintoaccountorwhytheywere
rejected.Accordingtonongovernmentalorganisations,toooften,citizens’opinionsdo
notreceivefeedbackbecauseofthelackoftimeorotherreasons.Themainfocusand
thecoreactionoftheactivityisdevelopingtheDraftActInformationSystem,while
includingthefunctionofaddingnotificationsandfeedbackoncitizeninput.The
summariesofpublicconsultationwillbeaddedtotheDraftActInformationSystemin
co-operationwithactivity2.1.4Currently,publicandcivilsocietystakeholdershave
beenhelddiscussionsaboutpossiblesolutionsanddevelopments,andtheGovernment
Officeislookingforfundingopportunitiesforthenextactivities.Therefore,theIRM
researcherassessesthisactivity’scompletionassubstantial.
Thethirdactivity(3.1)aimstosupportcivilservantswhoarenotextensively
experiencedwithpolicy-making,butwhostillareactiveinpolicy-making.Themain
purposeoftheactivityistoshareadministratorexperienceswiththosewhoareless
experienced.Theactivityseekstocreateguidelinesforparticipationmethodsandto
makebestpracticesmoreavailableforthosewhomakepolicy.Thegovernmentisno
longermakinganewwebpagefortheactivitybecauseitwoulddemandtoomany
resources.Withnongovernmentalorganisations,thegovernmenthasbeendiscussing
variousactivitiestopromotegoodpractices,buttheyarepending.Therefore,the
completionofthisactivityisassessedaslimited.
Diditmatter?
TheOGPCo-ordinatingBoarddiscussedactivity2.2.attheirmeetinginJanuary2015.A
pointofdiscussionwasthattheproceduresonwhenandhowcitizensand
nongovernmentalorganisationscanparticipateinpolicy-makingprocesshasnolegal
definition.Makinginformationaboutthebeginningofpolicy-makingprocessavailableis
easierwithlegislationsanddevelopmentplans,butitismoredifficultwithregulations.
Inaddition,proceduralstepsoftenarehardtofollow,andtheymightnotbe
standardised.TheIRMresearcherbelievesthatifcitizensandnongovernmental
organisationsdonotorarenotawareofthepossibilitiestosubmitinformation,then
thisactivitywillnotachieveitsgoals.
Previousexperienceshaveshownthatpeopleareinterestedingettinginvolvedin
policy-makingprocesses,butthattheywanttoreceivefeedback.Activity2.4setoutto
includepublicconsultationsummariesintheDraftActInformationSystem.5Bothpublic
institutionsandCSOsexpresseduncertaintyaboutthenumberofpeoplevisitingthe
portalregularlyorgettinginvolvedinpublicconsultation.ATNSEmor2014report
statedthatthere39percentofrespondentshadnotvisitedalocalorstateportalduring
thelasttwoyears.Inaddition,onlyelevenpercentoftherespondentshadvisitedthe
portalforlegalactscalledtheStateGazette.6Thatisonereasonwhyactivity2.4maynot
achieveitsgoals.
37
In2014,theNetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisationsreleasedarenewed
guidebookforinvolvement.Onegoalistoimproveparticipatorydemocracybyensuring
regulardialoguebetweensocietyanddecisionmakers.7Thisisastepforwardfor
activity3.1.Oneofthepurposesofthisactivitywastocreateauser-friendlyguidebook.
Althoughtheactivitydidnotintendforannongovernmentalorganisationtodevelopa
guidebook,theguidebookstillqualifiesasanindependentactivityworkingtowardsthe
sameaim.
Movingforward
Citizensshouldbemoreinvolvedinthedecisionmakingprocess.Therefore,itis
laudablethatactivity2.2workstowardsthisgoal.However,improvingtheDraftAct
InformationSystemmaynotbringthedesiredchangesinimprovedparticipation.For
example,asproceduralstepsarehardtoreadorfollow,citizensandorganisations
mightnotusethesystemasactivelyasexpected.
Additionally,duringtheIRMresearcher’sfocusgroupsandinterviews,civilsocietyand
academicorganisationsexpressedtheviewthatmorestrategicpartnershipsbetween
ministriesandnongovernmentalorganisationsareneededinEstonia.Inthisregard,
CSOswantsupportfordevelopingtheircapacityforpolicyplanningandadvising.The
NetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisationsproposedtwoideas:
1. Creatingan“advocacylab”forapproximately10organisationsthat
governmentwouldsupportindifferentwaystoincreasetheircapacityin
policyplanningandadvising.
2. Specificstrategicpartnershipsbetweencivilsocietyandpublic
organisations.
Finally,theIRMresearcherrecommendscontinuingtodevelopparticipation,especially
inbudgetingatthestatelevel.Tomakeparticipatorybudgetingmorepopularwith
citizens,policy-makersshouldimprovetheprocessviafeedbackfrominvolvedcitizens
andorganisations.
1Whilethedescriptionoftheactivitiesintheactionplanislimited,inthefollowingnarrativetheIRM
researcherdrewonadditionalinformationfromtheMid-termProgressReport,fromtheGovernment
Office’swebsite,additionalanalyses,andinterviews.Thesameprincipleappliesforotherclusters.
TäitmiseVahearuanne(Report,Talllinn[sic],2015),19,http://bit.ly/1Mml9Qe
3EestiTegevuskavaAvatudValitsemisePartnerlusesOsalemisel2014-2016,19,http://bit.ly/1Mml9Qe
4EestiTegevuskavaAvatudValitsemisePartnerlusesOsalemisel2014-2016,19,http://bit.ly/1Mml9Qe
5Riigikantselei,“Tegevus2.4.PoliitikakujudamiseTulemustestParemaTagasisideAndmiseksErinevate
VõimalusteJaMeetoditeTutvustamineValitsusasutustele,NendeKasutuselevõtt,”http://bit.ly/21JVvqe
http://bit.ly/1Uf58OF
7EMSL,Kaasamine:AvalikusSektorisJaVabakonnasbyUrmoKübarandHilleHinsberg(Report,Tallinn,
2014),12,http://bit.ly/1oaek8P
38
5:Capacity-buildingsupportfornongovernmentalpartnersinpolicy-making
2.5: Providing content for participation projects financed by European Union structural
fundsandimplementationoftheseprojectsincooperationwiththirdsectororganizations
StartDate:1June2014
EndDate:30June2016
3.2:Increasingtheabilityofsocialpartnersandotherthirdsectororganizationstobetter
analyse public policies and to include their member organizations in the formation of
positionsregardingpublicpolicies
EndDate:30June2016
EditorialNote:TheIRMresearcherclusteredthetwoactivitiesbecausetheyboth
supportcapacity-buildingfornongovernmentalpartners.Theclusterformsawholefirst
byincreasingtheabilityofsocialpartnerstoanalysepublicpoliciesandthenbyfunding
participationprojects.
ResponsibleInstitution(s):GovernmentOffice,MinistryoftheInterior(issuesrelatedto
strategicpartnership)
SupportingInstitution(s):MinistryofJustice,MinistryoftheInterior,Networkof
EstonianNon-profitOrganisations,othergovernmentauthorities,andcivilsociety
organisations(CSOs)
2.5. Deciding upon
and funding
participation
projects
3.2. Training CSOs
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Note:Undertheoldcriteriaofstarredcommitments,commitment2.5wouldhave
receivedastarbecauseitismeasurable,clearlyrelevanttoOGPvaluesaswritten,
ofmoderatepotentialimpact,andsubstantiallyorcompletelyimplemented.The
IRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015.
Whathappened?
Thisclusterofactivitiesprovidescapacity-buildingsupportfornongovernmental
partnersinpolicy-making.Activity2.5aimstofundparticipationprojects.The
GovernmentOffice,withothernongovernmentalorganisationsandgovernmental
institutions,alreadydesignedmeasuresforacquiringEUStructuralFunds.2They
earmarkedfinancialsupportforthreekindsofactivitiesfor2015-2020:(1)testingnew
participationsolutions;(2)developinggovernmentparticipationsolutions;and(3)
capacity-buildingofnongovernmentalpartnersinpolicy-making.With440,000Euros,
theGovernmentOfficeisplanningtosupportsevenprojectsthatenhanceparticipation
39
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
Specificity
practicesinEstonia,whichequatestoapproximately60,000-70,000Eurosperproject.
Oneprojectwasselectedandfunded.AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,thelevelof
completionofthisactivityissubstantialbecausethefundingmeasureshavebeen
designedandoneoutofsevenpossibleprojectshasbeenfunded,asperschedule.3
Activity3.2aimstobuildthecapacityofnongovernmentalpartnersthrougha
leadershipdevelopmentprogrammeandacapacity-buildingprogrammeinpolicymaking.Theleadershipdevelopmentprogrammewascompleted,and30participants
passed11trainings(e.g.strategicmanagement,personnelmanagement,impact
evaluation,co-operationandco-ordination,communication,policydevelopment,roleof
themanagersinnongovernmentalorganisations,etc.).4InNovember2015,the
GovernmentOfficeplanstostartanewcapacity-buildingprogrammeinpolicy-making
withnongovernmentalpartnersthatisexpectedtoendinJune2016.Further,the
MinistryoftheInteriorisworkingtounifythestrategicpartnershipbetween
nongovernmentalpartnersandpublicinstitutions.AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,the
levelofcompletionofthisactivityissubstantialbecausetheleadershipdevelopment
programmewascompletedandpreliminaryactivitiesforthecapacity-building
programmeweremade.NongovernmentalorganisationsinterviewedbytheIRM
researcherespeciallyappreciatedtheMinistryoftheInterior’sinitiativetoestablishand
tofundamulti-yearstrategicpartnershipbetweennongovernmentalpartnersandthe
Ministry.
Recentyearshaveshownpositivedevelopmentsinstakeholders’attitudeandskillsin
policy-making.Positivedevelopmentshavebecomeevidentindesigningand
implementingparticipationprocessesinpublicinstitutions.Theauthorities
acknowledgedtherelevanceinraisingthecompetenceofCSOsandthegeneralpublicto
discussandtosolvepolicyproblems.5However,tobemoreonparwiththedecision
makers,thecapacityofnongovernmentalactorsneedstobehigher,includingtheability
tocarryoutevidence-basedanalysis.
Diditmatter?
Thiscommitmentsetsouttoincreasethecapacityofthegovernmentand
nongovernmentalpartnerstoengageandtobeengagedinpolicy-making,boththrough
specialparticipationprojectsinthepolicyplanningprocess(2.5)andbyincreasingthe
analytical,co-operative,andinstitutionalcapacitiesofsocialpartnerstoanalysepublic
policiesbetter(3.2).Whilepossibleparticipationprojectsstillhavenotbeenselectedor
funded,theleadershipdevelopmentprogrammeunderactivity3.2wasimplemented
andreceivedpositiveevaluationsfromtheparticipantsaswellasfromthetrainers.
AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,thepotentialimpactofbothactivitiesismoderate
because,accordingtothedesignedmeasures,importantcapacity-buildingand
participationactivitieswillbefunded.CivilsocietypartnersinterviewedbytheIRM
researcherfoundthefundingmeasureandprogrammestobehelpful,buttheproblem
ofhowtomaketheparticipationofpublicandnongovernmentalorganisations
sustainableandeffectivelyoutcome-orientedstillremains.
Civilsociety,academics,andprivateorganisationspointedoutthatinvolvementin
policy-makingisverydemandingandtime-consumingandthatitrequiresalotofeffort
fromthem.Accordingly,onlythebiggerandstrongernongovernmentalpartnerscan
participate.IntheopinionoftheIRMresearcher,thisleadstoaviciouscircleinwhich
stakeholdersonlyincreasetheircapacitywhentheyfeelthattheyareinvitedand
involvedinpolicyplanningprocess;atthesametime,accordingtosomeCSOsconsulted
bytheIRMresearcher,thepublicsectorinvitesmostlynongovernmentalorganisations
thathavesufficientcapacityforinvolvement.
40
Movingforward
Whilepublishingpoliciesearlyintheirdevelopmentprocessescouldhelp
nongovernmentalpartnerstoparticipate,offeringopportunitiesforparticipationdoes
notautomaticallyincreaseparticipation.Tohavemoreimpactonparticipation,
commitmentsinthisareashouldconsiderandfocusonothercrucialaspectsof
involvement,suchasmethodsforinvolvementorgroupstobeinvolved.
Additionally,theIRMresearcherrecommendsthatcommitmentsmorecloselylinktheir
designandimplementation.Forexample,activitieswithinthetransparencyinpolicymakingprocessesshouldbelinkedmorestronglywiththecapacitybuildingfor
nongovernmentalpartnersactivities.
Finally,consultedCSOsunderscoredthatfundedprojectsshouldincludemonitoringand
evaluationelementsandshouldmainstreambestpractices.
1Whilethedescriptionoftheactivitiesintheactionplanislimited,inthefollowingnarrativetheIRM
researcherdrewonadditionalinformationfromtheMid-termProgressReport,theGovernmentOffice’s
website,additionalanalyses,andinterviews.Thesameprincipleappliesforotherclusters.
2“Kaasamisprojektid2015-2020,”Riigikantselei,http://bit.ly/1LLsgBU
4“Arenguprogramm:VabaühendusteJuhtidele,”Praxis,http://bit.ly/1LLsokO
5Praxis,VabaühendusteSisedemokraatiaUuring[EvaluationofInternalDemocracyinNon-profit
Organisations]”(Report,2014),56,http://bit.ly/1LLssAZ
41
6:WebtoolforpetitionstoParliament
2.6:Creatinganon-governmentalweb-baseddiscussionenvironmenttogivecitizensan
opportunitytoinitiate,compileandthensubmit,digitallysigned,collectivememorandato
stateandlocalauthorities
StartDate:1December2014 EndDate:28February2014
EditorialNote:TheenddateofthisactivitywaspostponedtoDecember2015.
ResponsibleInstitution(s):EstonianCo-operationAssembly
Co-operationpartner(s):Parliament,theGovernmentOffice,interestedministries
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
receivedastarbecauseitismeasurable,clearlyrelevanttotheOGPvaluesas
written,ofmoderatepotentialimpact,andsubstantiallyorcompletely
implemented.TheIRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015.
Whathappened?
Althoughthecommitmentaswrittenwasnotclearonthespecifictoolitwouldenable,it
neverthelessproposedtodesignawebsitethatenablesthegeneralpublictoraise
issues,deliberate,anddevelopideasonlegislativeproposals,andtosubmitcitizen
initiativestotheParliament.Priortothisactivity,twosimilarwebpagesalreadyexisted:
(1)www.osale.eeand(2)eelnoud.valitsus.ee.Theformeristheplatformforsending
one’sideasandproposalstothegovernmentoffice,gatheringsupportanddigital
signaturesfortheproposedideas,commentingondraftlaws,andlookingupandfinding
lawsandstrategicdocuments.Thelatteristheplatformfortheco-ordinationandpublic
discussionofdraftlawsandforfindinglawsandstrategicdocuments.
A2011OECDreportfoundthattheEstonianGovernmenthaddifficultiesininvolving
citizensindecisionmakingprocessesbecausemostcivilsocietyorganisations(CSOs)
havelowcapacityandprofessionalism,andthepublicsectordoesnothavethe
necessaryknowledgeandskillstoinvolvecitizenseffectively.2AccordingtoEstonia's
ProgressReportof2012-2013,3theproblemremainedwithoutanappropriatesolution.
Thenewwebpageattemptstoaddressthisproblem.
In2013,thePeople’sAssembly,consideredthepioneerofthenewwebpage,collected
proposalsfromthepublicthroughcrowdsourcing.Theyreceived15concreteideasfor
legislativeamendments.4Oneideawastodefinealegalregulationforcollectivecitizen
initiatives(petitions).TheParliamentdraftedandadoptedtheregulation.Itstatedthat
citizensandpermanentresidentsmaysubmitproposalsfortheamendmentoflegal
provisionsandforaddressingsocialissuesiftheyhaveatleast1,000signatures.Itwas
animportantlegalchangetoimproveopportunitiesforcollectivepetitions.
42
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
High
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Medium
Specificity
Althoughthewebpageisbeingdevelopedstill,activecitizenshaveusedtheregulation
already.Atthebeginningof2015,theParliamentacceptedthefirstlegalamendment
initiatedbythepublic.TheEstonianChamberofCommerceandIndustry,with1,300
entrepreneursandactivecitizens,madetheproposal.5Themainpurposeofthislawwas
tochangethetimebetweenratifyingalawoftaxesandenforcingittoatleastsix
months(seecluster3).
Thenewlawhasbeenusedalready,buttheoutputstillismissing,namely,thewebpage.
Therefore,thecompletionofthisactivityislimited.Thegovernment’sself-assessment
reportstatesthatthewebpageisbeingdeveloped.Bytheendof2015,theEstonianCooperationAssemblyshouldhavearrangedacompetitionforthewebpagename,tested
theweb-environment,andlaunchedit.Afterthat,managingandmoderatingthe
webpageshouldhavebegun.Lateritwillbepossibletoaddnewfunctionsandlevelsto
thewebpage.Forexample,localgovernmentscouldusethesameplatform.Theend-oftermreportthatcoversthesecondyearofimplementationoftheseactivitieswill
evaluatewhethertheEstonianCo-operationAssemblyachievedtheseplans.
Finally,theGovernmentOfficeexplainedduringtheirreviewofthisreportthatthetool
currentlyisforpetitionstotheParliamentonly,althoughtheoriginalcommitmenttext
includedlocallevelgovernmentaswell.
Diditmatter?
Theactivityisexpectedtoincreasecivilsocietyengagementbyimprovingtheprocessof
publicengagement,specifically,bymakingaspecialwebpageforraisingquestions,
negotiatingthem,andcollectingsignaturesforsupport.Thisactivityhasmoderate
potentialimpact.Makinganewwebpageforpetitionsmaynotbeenoughtoraise
citizens’useofe-democracyservices.Thisactivityalonemightnotbeambitiousenough
toachievethegoals.Additionalpreconditionsandactivitiesmightbeneeded(e.g.
increasingthetrustinpoliticalpartiesandtheParliament,increasingvoterturnout,
increasingfaithandmotivationtobeactivecitizens,etc.)beforetheplatformwouldbe
successful.
Thegovernmentfacesseriouschallengesconcerningactivecitizenship.Themain
problemisthatcitizensdonotfeeltheiropinionsaretakenintoaccountinthe
discussionanddecisionmakingprocesses.Ninety-fivepercentofpeoplewho
participatedinthePeople’sAssemblyfeltthattheirparticipationdidnotaffectthe
result.6
InDecember2014,theGoodGovernanceProgrammemadeseveralsuggestionstofulfil
thisactivity.First,itsuggestedthatthegeneralpublicandcivilservantstestthe
webpage.Second,theGoodGovernanceProgrammeproposedthattheParliament
shouldbeprovidedwithanoverviewofparticipantsandtheireffortswiththedraftact.
Inaddition,theprogrammesuggeststhat,giventoomanypassiveparticipantsinthe
involvementprocess,itwouldbebettertoinvolvecitizensdirectly.7
Forthesereasons,itisstillunclearwhetherthisnewwebpagewillbepopularamongst
citizens.Recentresearchshowsthatthenumberofcitizenswhousee-democracy
servicesisrelativelylow.Accordingtoa2014TNSEmorpoll,67percentofinternetusershadneverusede-democracyservices,whichwaseightpercentlowerthanin
2012.8ThesameTNSEmor’spollanalysedhowmanypeoplepublishedtheiropinionin
thetwowebpages.Onepercentofrespondentshadusedwww.osale.ee,andsevenper
centofpeoplehadusedwww.petitsioon.ee.9Ifthepercentageofcitizenswhouseedemocracyservicesremainlow,thentheprobabilitythatthenewwebpageisgoingto
besuccessfulisalsolow.Additionally,ifnongovernmentalorganisationsmanagethe
webpagewithoutfinancialsupporttokeepitrunningandtoupdateitregularly,then
theconsistentfunctioningofthewebpagewouldbequestionable.
43
Ingeneral,nongovernmentalorganisationsconsideredthisactivityashavinghigh
potentialtomakebigchangeinsociety.ThePrimeMinisteralsopromotedthiswebpage
inhisintroductionoftheactionplan.MargusLehesaar,AdvisorattheDevelopment
DepartmentoftheMinistryofFinance,statedthat,atthelocallevel,theycreateda
similarinformationsystemorplatformthatenablesthelocalgovernmentstomaketheir
decisionsanddiscussionpublic.Throughthissystem,itispossibletofollowthelocal
governmentmeetingsinrealtimeandtoinvolvethepublic.Currently,approximately25
localgovernmentsusethesystem,anditcosts60Eurospermonthperlocal
government.Thesystemisupdatedconstantlybasedonthefeedbackofusers.
Morecriticalvoicesexpressedtheopinionthattoomanyportalsandwebtoolsexist.
Theybelievethatachangeinthecultureofcitizenengagementisneeded,notthe
creationofanotherplatform.Becausethisistheoneactivityintheactionplanforwhich
anongovernmentalorganisationisresponsible,ingeneralCSOs’hopesareratherhigh.
Movingforward
TheIRMresearcherrecommendsopeningthewebpageassoonaspossibleand
promotingitactively,includingthroughsocialmedia.Afuturecommitmentonthistopic
couldincludepromotionalactivityaswellasmorespecificactivitiestoencouragelocal
municipalitiestotakeadvantageofthesystem.
However,bearinginmindcivilsociety’scriticisms,thegovernmentshouldanalyse
criticallyallexistingparticipatorywebpagesand,ifpossible,shouldconsiderdeveloping
onecentralwebpagewithpartners.Areformwithmoreimpactwouldbetofocuson
participatoryenvironmentimprovementsbecauseawebpageisnotsufficientto
increasetheusageofe-democracyservices.Itislaudablethatthecommitment’s
implementationsoughttoallowfordirectdemocracy,butafuturecommitmentshould
beorientedtowardsimprovingtheoverallenvironmentandincentivesforparticipation,
inadditiontopromotingorimprovingthisnewwebpageoracentralisedone.
interviews.Thesameprincipleappliesforotherclusters.
2OECD,“Estonia:TowardsaSingleGovernmentApproach,“OECDPublicGovernanceReviews,OECD
Publishing(2011):278-279,http://bit.ly/22zes4R
3HilleHinsberg,IndependentReportingMechanismEstonia:ProgressReport2012-2013(Report,
Washington,D.C.),36,http://bit.ly/1oaeSeZ
4KodanikuühiskonnaArengukava2015-2020(Tallinn,2015),16-17,http://bit.ly/1Uf88KX
5AnnikaUudelepp,”RahvakoguleOnTänuVõlguVähemaltKolmValimistelOsalevatErakonda,”Uudised,
ERR,20February2015,http://bit.ly/1LLt8GC
6HilleHinsberg,“RahvakoguTulemus:VõimKaotas,KuidInimesedLähenesid,”Arvamus,Postimees,22
November2014,http://bit.ly/1oafdhL
7EestiKoostööKogu,RiigipidamiseKava(Report,2014),4,http://bit.ly/1pB3eLc
http://bit.ly/1Uf58OF
9KodanikeRahuloluRiigiPooltPakutavateAvalikeE-Teenustega2014,80,http://bit.ly/1Uf58OF
44
7:Upgradinggovernmentportalforopenspending/budgettransparency
4.1:Includingtheaccountingdataofcentralgovernment,personsinpubliclawandas
manyotherunitsofthepublicsectoraspossibleinthedesignatedpublicfinanceswebbasedapplication,withalevelofdetailasrequiredinthechartofaccounts
StartDate:1September2014 EndDate:31December2015
4.2:Publicizingprivatesectorandthirdsectortransactionpartnersoflocalauthorities
andinterfacingthisinformationwiththebusinessregistrytoshowpersonsrelatedtothese
transactions
StartDate:1January2016
EndDate:31July2016
4.3:Includingthirdsectororganizationsthathavereceivedfundingfromthestatebudget
inthepublicfinancesapplication
StartDate:1September2015 EndDate:30June2016
EditorialNote:Theclustercombineseffortstoenhancetransparencyofgovernmentheldspendingdataoflocalmunicipalities,centralgovernmentinstitutions,andcivil
societyinstitutions(CSOs).Thestartdatefor4.1waspostponedbythreemonthsto
December2014.Intheprogressreport,itbecameevidentthattheenddatefor4.2
wouldbeexpeditedbyonemonthtoJune2016.Theenddatefor4.3wouldbeexpedited
sixmonthstoDecember2015.
Co-operationpartner(s):Praxis,citizens’associations;theMinistryofJustice,theState
AuditOffice;theMinistryoftheInterior,theNetworkofEstonianNon-profit
Organisations
4.1. Central
government
transactions
4.2. Local
authorities’
transactions with
private entities
4.3. Public
spending for nonprofits
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
45
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
Specificity
Note:Undertheoldcriteriaofstarredcommitments,commitments4.1and4.2
wouldhavereceivedstarsbecausetheyaremeasurable,clearlyrelevanttothe
OGPvaluesaswritten,ofmoderatepotentialimpact,andsubstantiallyor
completelyimplemented.TheIRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015.
Whathappened?
Activity4.1seekstomakebudgetspendingmoretransparent.Itaimstomakeavailable
theaccountingdataofthecentralgovernment,personsinpubliclaw,andotherunitsof
thepublicsector.Forthisactivity,thegovernmentcommittedtoupdatinganewwebbasedapplicationcalled“StateFinances”inco-operationwiththeresearchcentrePraxis
andcivilsocietyassociations.Feedbackandexperiencesfrompreviousprojectslike
“StateCloud”(acloud-basedwebpagewherepeoplecouldseethebudgetingoflocal
governmentsfrom2004to2012andwhichhad8,600visitorsand200,000enquiries)2
helpedtodevelopthenewwebpage.StateCloudservedasimilarpurpose,butitdidnot
updatethedataandwasnotuser-friendly.Therewashighdemandforabetteropen
spendingwebpage.
StateFinancesimprovedaspectsofuser-friendlinessandhasahighervolumeofthe
data.Additionally,itisavailableinEstonianandEnglish.Thegovernmentopenedthe
newStateFinancesapplicationwebpagein2014.Thegovernmentisplanningtofinish
testinganddevelopmentitbytheendof2015.Thewebpagelaunchisplannedforthe
beginningof2016.TheIRMresearcherfindsthecompletionoftheactivitysubstantial,
althoughthedevelopmentactivitiesarebehindschedule.
Activity4.2focusesonpublicisinglocalauthorities’privateandthirdsectortransaction
partners(namesoforganisations,allocatedfunds,purposesofthefunding,etc.).Italso
aimstoaddinformationtothebusinessregistrytoshowpersonsrelatedtodifferent
transactions.Themaingoalsofthisactivityaretoimprovetransparency,toimprove
trust,andtodecreasecorruption.TheMinistryofFinanceisplanningtochangethe
financialmanagementlawtospecifytheaccountingdatadetailsforlocalgovernment
units.3
Theupdateddraftactonfinancialmanagementisthepreconditionfortheweb-page
applicationtobearequirementforallpublicinstitutions.Thegovernmenthopesitwill
beacceptedbyJune2016,inwhichcasethenewlawwouldtakeeffecton1September
2016.4TheIRMresearcherassessesthecompletionofthisactivityassubstantial
becausetheactivityrangeanditscostsweredefined.Thedraftactandapplicationof
thenewlawisnotdoneyet.
Activity4.3isrelatedcloselytoactivity4.1.Bothaimtodevelopthepublicfinances
application.Thisactivitysetouttomakepublicexpendituresmoretransparentandto
facilitatethegeneralpublicandthepublicsectors’opendatause.Previously,the
spendingdataofcentralgovernmentinstitutionsincludingstate-ownedenterprisesand
foundations,universities,andhospitalswereavailableinfinancialstatementsand
accountingformats.Theseformatsdidnotenableaccessnongovernmentalactorsorthe
generalpublictosearchfordataortoanalyseitindependently.Therewasnoregisterof
thethirdsectororganisations(nongovernmentalorganisationsorfoundations)thathad
receivedsupportfromgovernmentagenciesormunicipalities.5Thus,includingthird
sectororganisationsthatreceivedfundingfromthestatebudgetinthepublicfinances
applicationwillcallupongovernmentactorstojustifytheirdecisions,toactupon
criticismsorrequirements,andtoacceptresponsibilityforpossiblefailuresofthe
organisationstoperformwithrespecttocommitments.
Accordingtothegovernment’sself-assessmentreport,thecontentandstructureofthis
activitystillisbeingdiscussed.Currently,theportaldoesnotshowwhichcompanies,
CSOsorfoundationsoutsideofthegovernmentsector,receivedgovernmentor
46
municipalityfunding.TheIRMresearcherassessesthecompletionofthisactivityas
limitedbecausedescriptionandthemainaimsofthisactivitystillneedtobediscussed.
Diditmatter?
Currentlytwowebpageshavethepurposeofmakingpublicsectorbudgetspending
moreunderstandableandvisualtocitizens.ThePraxisResearchCentrereleaseda
webpage(www.meieraha.ee),whichvisualisesstatebudgetspendingandshowsthe
budgetofsomemunicipalitiesandhowtheirtaxesarespent.Anotherwebpage
(riigiraha.fin.ee),developedbythestateunderactivity4.1,openedinApril2014.It
helpsusersanalyseandcomparetheexpensesandincomesofdifferentmunicipalities
ofEstonia.Usersalsocanentertheirsalaryandtheapplicationcalculateshowtheir
taxesarespent.
Untilnow,thepublicsectorhasmadestrongattemptstomakefiscalandaccounting
dataavailableinareadableandaccessibleway.Atthesametime,nongovernmental
organisationsclaimthatwww.meieraha.eeisamuchmorelogicalplatform,andthe
teamdevelopingriigiraha.fin.eeshouldlearnsimplicityanduserfriendlinessfrom
www.meieraha.ee.However,thegoalofriigiraha.fin.eewastoprovideatooltoacquire
analyticalinformationwhilebeinganopendataapplication.Thetwositesare
complementaryinthatwww.meieraha.eeprovidestheoverallsummaryofhowthe
statemoney“comesandgoes,”andtheriigiraha.fin.eeprovidesmoreconcretenumbers,
facts,andstatistics.
TheOGPCo-ordinatingBoarddiscussedactivity4.2inSeptember2015.Theyare
waitingforgeneralagreementonthedetailsofthepublicizeddatatosetupthetotal
workcapacity.Thedraftfinancialmanagementlawaswellasotheractivitieswhichare
necessaryforthechangeoffinancialmanagementlawwerependingatthetimeof
writingthisreport.Thegovernment’sself-assessmentreportstatesthattheyarehaving
difficultiespublicizingopen-databecausetransparencyandopennessarenotdeeply
rootedinEstoniansociety.Inaddition,localgovernmentshavedifferentaccounting
systems,whicharenotcompatiblewiththeproject.6Thisactivityisambitiousinaiming
toincreasetransparency,buttherehavebeendifficultieswithlocalgovernment
accountingsystems.CSOsbelievethatthecommitmentaimedhigherthanitsoutcomes.
Also,publicservantscommentedthatmanyministrieswerenotinformedaboutthe
processatfirst,andtherehavebeencommunicationproblems.Mostoftherelevantcivil
servantsinministrieswerenotinvolvedindesigningtheprocesses. Inaddition,the
EstonianCo-operationAssemblyoftheMunicipalitiesfoundthatthisactivityisnot
producingtheexpectedresultandthatitwillincreasetheworkloadoflocal
governmentaccountants.7Thatmightmeanthatthisactivityneedsmoretimetoinclude
allthedatafromlocalgovernmentaccountingsandtomakesurethatthedatawillbe
collectedeffectively.
TheOGPCo-ordinatingBoardmeetingdiscussedactivity4.3,andtheissuewasraised
thatthisactivitylacksacleargoalintermsofwhatdatawillbepublished.Itisimportant
tosystematisethefinancialrelationsbetweenpublicsectorinstitutionsandcivil
society.8Activity4.3wastooambitious,andtheexpectedgoalssurpassedthereal
situation.Civilsocietyandacademicorganisationspointedoutthatmissingvisualisation
ofspending,missingbudgetsonvariousissues,andmissingwebpagesareadditional
drawbacksthathinderpublicdiscussion.
Movingforward
Regardingimmediatenextsteps,theIRMresearcherrecommendsadvertisingthe
applicationStateFinanceswebpageandencouragingpeopletouseit.Thepublicfinance
applicationisagoodwaytoraisetrusttowardsthegovernment,butithasnotbeen
advertisedyet,andthereareonlyafewarticlesonit.
47
Asalongertermgoal,perhapsforthenextactionplan,theIRMresearcherrecommends
involvingmorelocalgovernmentsinthepublicfinancetransparencyprocess.The
government’sself-assessmentreportrecognisedthatoneoftherisksofactivity4.2was
thatlocalgovernments’accountingsystemsaresometimestoodifferenttobe
rearrangedinaccordancetothisactivity’sgoals.Itwillbeimportanttodescribethenew
aspectsofthefinancialmanagementlaw,togivelocalgovernmentsenoughtimeto
adjustpossiblechanges,andtoguaranteetheirfull,integratedinclusioninEstonia’s
spendingtransparency.
2E24,Majandusajakirjanik,”OmavalitsusteFinantsandmedOnNüüdsestPüsivaltKättesaadavad,“
Majandus,Postimees,14April2014,http://bit.ly/22zfcqD
3Riigikogu,”SeletuskiriKohalikuOmavalitsuseÜksuseFinantsjuhtimiseSeaduseEelnõuJuurde,“
http://bit.ly/1Rp8Z5S
4Riigikantselei,“Tegevus4.2.KohalikeOmavalitsusteErasektorisseJaKolmandasseSektorisseKuuluvate
TehingupartneriteAvalikustamineNingSelleInfoLiidestamineÄriregistrigaTehingugaSeotudIsikute
Väljatoomiseks,”http://bit.ly/1XRK2nM
7EestiKoostööKogu,ValitsuskomisjoniJaOmavalitsusliitudeKoostöökoguDelegatsiooniLäbirääkimiste
Kokkuvõte2016.AastaRiigieelarveOsas(Report,Tallinnas,2015),http://bit.ly/1XRKP83
8LiisKasemets,AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseKoordineerivKogu(Meetingprotocol,Tallinn,8September
2015),2,http://bit.ly/1XRKRwB
48
8:Guidelinesforcitizenbudgeting
4.4:Compilingtheguidelinesforlocalauthoritiesforprovidingaconciseoverviewofthe
localbudgetunderstandabletoacitizen,inamannersimilartotheStateBudgetStrategy
andthestatebudget
StartDate:1November2014 EndDate:30March2015
SupportingInstitution(s):E-GovernanceAcademy,localgovernmentassociations,the
GovernmentOffice
✔
✔
✔
Whathappened?
Thisactivityaimstotransferknowledgefromthecentralgovernment’sMinistryof
Financetolocalmunicipalitiesonhowtocreateandhowtopublishbriefoverviewsof
localgovernmentbudgetsinauser-friendlyandreadableway.Althoughsomelocal
municipalitiesexperimentedwithparticipatorybudgeting,theymostlydonotcreate
user-friendlyaccesstobudgetsorspendingdocuments.Thisactivitywasasteptowards
disseminatingOGPprinciplesofopennessatthesubnationallevel.
TheMinistryofFinancepublishestheStateBudgetStrategyforthefollowingbudgetary
yearandthesubsequentthreeyears,aswellasannualbudgetstoinformthegeneral
publicoffinancialforecastsandbudgetedrevenuesandcosts.InJanuary2015,the
MinistryofFinancepreparedguidelinesforthelocalgovernmentsonpreparingbrief
overviewsoflocalbudgets.TheguidelineswereaddedtotheMinistryofFinance’s
webpageandintroducedtolocalmunicipalities.TheIRMresearcherfoundthe
commitmenttobecompletedbecauseguidelinesarepublished2andwereintroducedto
thelocalgovernments.Thechallengefacedbythegovernmentistoincreaselocal
municipalities’interesttofollowingtheguidelines.BecausetheMinistryofFinancehas
aseparatedepartmentaddressingquestionsfromlocalgovernments,theycould
advocatetheguidelineswhilepromotinggoodexamples.Localgovernments’
representativestakingpartintheIRMresearcher’sfocusgroupwerenotawareofthe
guidelines,andtheydidnotconsiderittobeausefulactivity,ingeneral(atleastfor
theirmunicipalities).Civilsocietyorganisations(CSOs)welcomedactivitiesthatmight
createbetteraccesstoinformation,buttheyquestionedwhethertheguidelinesreach
thetargetgroupsandiftheyarefollowedinpractice.
Diditmatter?
TheIRMresearcherconsidersthepotentialimpactoftheactivityasminorbecause
variousnationalandinternationalguidelinesandsuggestionsthathelpcreateasimple
overviewaboutlocalgovernmentbudgetsalreadyexisted.Theactivitydoesnotcreate
Complete
Limited
✔
Substantial
Completion
Notstarted
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
PotentialImpact
None
Tech.andinnov.for
transparencyand
accountability
Civicparticipation
Accessto
information
OGPValueRelevance
High
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Medium
Specificity
49
anynewproduct,butoffersanEstonianversionofit.Becauseusingtheguidelinesis
optional,oneshouldnotexpectalargenumberofmunicipalitiestofollowthem.
AccordingtotheMinistryofFinance,sofartheinterestofusingtheguidelinesislow
becauselocalmunicipalitieshavelimitedbudgets,andallextracostsforcompilingand
publishingthereportsareviewedmostlyasanadditionalduty,notasanopportunity.
LocalgovernmentrepresentativesintheIRMresearcher’sfocusgroupswerenotaware
oftheguidelines,norhadotherstakeholdersheardabouttheguidelines.
Movingforward
ThestakeholderstheIRMresearcherconsultedhadsomewhatdivergingopinionson
thistopic.Localgovernmentrepresentativessuggestedmorepublicitytoimprove
awarenessandusageoftheguidelines.Nongovernmentalorganisationsadvocatedfor
moreemphasisonsharinggoodorbestpracticesonhowlocalgovernmenthavecreated
andpublisheduser-friendlyandreadablebudgets,ratherthanmoreemphasisonthe
guidelines.Overall,becauseinterestinusingtheguidelinesislow,theIRMresearcher
recommendsinshort-termactivitiesexplainthebenefitsofusingtheguidelines,
includingdemonstratinggoodexamplesfromlocalmunicipalities.Atalaterstage,a
commitmentwithpossiblymoreimpactcouldbetoofferstatefundingforpilotprojects
invarious-sizedlocalgovernments.Thepilotprojectsshouldtestanddiscoverthemost
workable,valuable,anduser-friendlyapproachestocreateandtopublishlocal
governmentbudgetsorsub-budgets.
2“KohalikeOmavalitsusteFinantsjuhtimine,”Rahandusministeerium,http://bit.ly/1LLv8OX
50
9:Citizen-centredpublicservices
5.1:Aninteractiveweb-basedtoolboxfordevelopingpublicserviceswillbecreatedwhere
servicedevelopersfromthepublic,privateandNGOsectorcanobtainguidelines,methods,
handbooks and best practices for developing new services or for redesigning existing
services.
StartDate:1September2014 EndDate:30September2016
5.2:Tocreateanoverviewofpublicserviceswhereallpublicserviceswouldbedescribedin
aunified,machineandhumanreadableform,andwherecitizenscanfindinformationon
whatqualitylevelserviceispromisedtothem
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:31December2015
5.3: Pilot projects will be carried out with selected public services being designed in
accordancewiththeguidelinesofdesigninguser-friendlye-services
StartDate:Notspecified
EndDate:30June2016
EditorialNote:Thisclusterofactivitiesfocusesondesigningpublicservicesin
accordancewithco-creationandauser-centricapproach.Itwillcreatebetter
preconditionstodevelopandtousepublicservicesinauser-centricmanner.
SupportingInstitution(s):StateInformationSystemAuthority(RIHA),Ministryof
Finance(publicprocurementregistry),othergovernmentinstitutions
5.1.Guidelines
forredesigning
publicservices
✔
✔
✔
5.2.Registryof
publicservices
✔
✔
✔
5.3.User-centric
publicservices
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
receivedastarbecauseitismeasurable,clearlyrelevanttoOGPvaluesaswritten,
ofmoderatepotentialimpact,andsubstantiallyorcompletelyimplemented.The
IRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015.
Whathappened?
Thefocusofthisclusteristheuser-friendlinessofpublicservices.Withtheaimtoraise
theskilllevelofcivilservantsandtomotivateauser-centricapproach,several
handbookswerepublished.Forexample,guidelinesonuser-focusedplanningof
deliveryprocessesandondesigninguser-friendlye-serviceswerepublished.Currently,
thereisnouniformdatabaseoftheservicesprovidedbygovernmentagenciesandlocal
51
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Notstarted
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
PotentialImpact
None
Tech.andinnov.for
transparencyand
accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civicparticipation
OGPValueRelevance
Accessto
information
Specificity
authorities.Withoutacomprehensivedatabaseandaccessibleregister,itischallenging
toinitiateco-operationbetweenpublicinstitutionsortodevelopintegratedservices.
Thisclusterofactivitiesaimstomakematerialseasilyusableforpublicservices
providersaswellasforserviceusersandotherstakeholders.
Activity5.1aimstoprepareguidelinesontheredesigningofpublicservices.Toachieve
thegoal,allmaterials(guidelines,methods,handbooks,andbestpractices)havetobe
madeeasilyaccessibleandusablebydevelopinganinteractiveweb-basedtoolboxfor
allthepublicservicedevelopersfromthepublic,privateandnongovernmental
organisationsector.Whilethegovernmentgatheredthematerialsforthetoolbox,they
reportedlackingfinancingtomakethetoolboxinteractive.TheIRMresearcherfound
thelevelofcompletionofthisactivitytobesubstantial.
Activity5.2aimstocreateanoverviewofallpublicservicesintheportfolioofthe
MinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications.Init,publicservicesaredescribedin
aunified,machine-andhuman-readableform,andcitizenscanfindinformationonthe
qualitylevelofservicesthattheyshouldexpecttobedelivered.Sofar,theMinistryof
EconomicAffairsandCommunicationsdescribedandpublishedthepublicservicesit
anditsagenciesprovide.2Otherministriesareexpectedtofollowtheexample.Allpublic
e-servicesareexpectedtobedescribedinaunifiedformatbyMarch2016.3Accordingto
theIRMresearcher,thelevelofcompletionofthisactivityissubstantial.
Activity5.3aimstocarryoutpilotprojectsinwhichselectedpublicservicesare
designedaccordingtoguidelinesofuser-friendlye-services.Toachievethegoal,several
e-serviceswillbedeveloped.Sofar,fourpilotprojectswerefundedtodesignuserfriendlye-services:(1)theEstonianTaxandCustomsBoarde-reschedulingtaxesand
theEstonianRoadAdministration’se-services;(2)theprivilegesandrightsofatraffic
registry;(3)alogbookofsamplenumbers;and,(4)orderingandmanagingnumber
plates.TheIRMresearcherfoundthelevelofcompletionofthisactivitytobesubstantial
becauseallfourprojectsareintheirfinaldevelopmentprocessandshouldbecompleted
alreadybytheendof2015(theofficialdeadlinehadbeensettoJune2016).
Diditmatter?
Activities5.1and5.2arestillinprocessandthebroaderoutcomesoftheactivitiesare
stilltocome.ThepublicservicesoftheMinistryofEconomicAffairsand
Communicationshavebeendescribedandpublishedontheirwebpage,oneofthefirst
stepstowardsthestandardisationofpublicservices.Itistooearlytoevaluatethe
broaderoutcome.Thusfar,thefoure-servicestobedevelopedandfinalisedunder
activity5.3receivedpositiveuserfeedback.However,foragenciesprovidingtheseeservices,theservicesarenotconsideredcoreoressential(e.g.logbooks,e-rescheduling
taxes,etc.).Onhisblog,MargusSimson,ane-servicesexpert,recommendsamore
unifiedsystemofdevelopingthee-servicesandtoolboxes.JanekRozov,Headof
InformationSocietyServicesDevelopmentDepartmentattheMinistryofEconomic
AffairsandCommunicationsbelievesthatcreatingaregistryforpublicservicesisoneof
themostessentialactivitiesintheactionplan.Hebelievesthatitmighthavea
transformingeffectondevelopingandupgradingpublicservices.
Therearetwotypesofpublicservices:(1)mechanicalones(givingoutlicences,
compilingthedata,etc.)and(2)professionalones(educational,medical,social
services).Mechanicalservicesarerelativelyeasytostandardise.Inthesecases,
unificationprocesscouldhelptoincreasethequalityofservices.Bycontrast,thesame
approachdoesnotalwayshelptheprofessionalservices.Havingacommondesignfor
theservicesdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthequalityoftheserviceswillincrease.
Academicorganisationsespeciallyacknowledgedthattheactivitiesareimplementedin
52
thefield,butforthesamereasonsmentionedabove,theywerescepticalaboutthe
outcomes.
AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,activities5.1and5.3haveminorpotentialimpact.
Theywouldimprovethesituationtoacertaindegree,butmostoftheinformation
producedandpublicserviceswereavailablealready.Activity5.2isofhigherpotential
impactbecauseitgoesbeyondacentralisedportaltoincorporateinnovative
accessibilityprinciples.Infact,theEuropeanCommissionrecognisedthiscommitment
formakingEstoniaoneofthefirstEuropeanUnioncountriestousethe“CorePublic
ServiceVocabularyApplicationProfile.”4
Differentpublicservicedevelopershavepointedoutthatdevelopingservicesrequiresa
lotofresources.5Havingtheguidelinesforcommondesignoftheservicesdoesnot
automaticallymeanthatallserviceprovidershavetheresourcestodevelopservices
accordingly.Additionally,itisimportanttokeepthetoolboxmaterialsupdated
(guidelines,methods,handbooks,andbestpractices)becausecircumstancesand
expectationsforpublicservicesareconstantlychanging.
Movingforward
Forthisclusterofactivities,theIRMresearcherrecommendscompletingthepending
implementation.Pendingactivitiesincludefindingpossiblefundsfordevelopingthe
above-mentionedinteractiveweb-basedtoolbox(5.1),introducingtheunifiedsystemof
publicservicestootherministries,laterdescribingallthepublice-servicesinunified
way(5.2),andimplementingthee-servicesdevelopmentprojects(5.3).
Fornextsteps,stakeholdersshouldconsidertheresourcestheOpenGovernmentGuide
providesonthepublicservicetopic.6
2“ServiceSearch,”RepublicofEstonia,MinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications,
http://bit.ly/1oagOEo
3Duringfinalisationofthisreport,thegovernmentreportedthat83institutionsmappedover1400
services.Theend-of-termreportwillevaluatethisactivitybecauseitfallsoutsidetheperiodcoveredbythis
report.
4“KnownReuseoftheCPSV(-AP),”Joinup,EuropeanCommission,http://bit.ly/1UMel0W
5“AvalikudTeenused:ProbleemidJaVäljakutsedEriOsapoolteSilmis,”29October2015,
http://bit.ly/1MFIuHo
6Theseresourcesareavailableonline.“PublicServices,”OpenGovernmentGuide,http://bit.ly/1q5dY57
53
10:Accesstoe-servicesfornon-residents
5.4:StartofissuingdigitalIDdocumentstonon-residents,thusimprovingthe
opportunitiesofnon-residentstousee-servicesandparticipateinaffairesofthesocietyas
wellasbusiness
StartDate:1December2014 EndDate:30June2016
ResponsibleInstitution(s):MinistryoftheInterior(first),governmentoffice(later)
Co-operationpartner(s):theMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications,the
MinistryoftheInterior,theMinistryofFinance,theMinistryofJustice,theParliament,
theEnterpriseEstonia,representativesfromprivatesector
✔
Unclear
✔
✔
Whathappened?
InEstonia,itispossibletousepublice-services,evenifyouareanon-resident.In
December2014,thePresidentofEstonia,T.H.Ilves,gavethefirstdigitalidentification
(ID)toanon-resident,EdwardLucas,awell-knownBritishjournalist.2Peoplewith
digitalIDsbecomee-residents.Themaingoalsofthisactivityaretoimprovetheaccess
toe-servicesfornon-residentsandtoissuedigitalIDdocumentstonon-residents.This
wouldimprovee-residents’involvementopportunitiesbothintheEstoniansocietyand
inbusiness,forexample,byenablingthemtoestablishandtoadministercompanies,to
conductbankingservices,todeclaretaxes,tosigncontractsdigitally,andtoaccess
internationalpaymentproviders.Theactivityalsoaimstoimprovethee-residency
programmebyraisingthenumberofe-residentsandimprovinge-servicesforthem.
Initially,theapplicationprocessforadigitalIDwasinconvenientbecauseinterestederesidentsneededtogotoEstoniatoconfirmtheirexistence.However,sinceMay2015,
itispossibletoreceivethedigitalIDfromthenearestEstonianEmbassy.InSeptember
2015,5,000e-residentshadreceivedtheirdigitalID.3TheMinistryofEconomicAffairs
andCommunicationshopestoreach60,000e-residentsbytheendof2017.Themain
goaltohave5,000e-residentsbytheendof2015wasmet.
Thee-residencyactivityreceivedalotofattention,andtheactivitywasexpanded.The
followingactionswereconductedsincethestartoftheactivityinDecember2014:eresidencyapplicationprocessesweresimplified.Creatingacompanyandopeninga
bankaccountvirtuallyiseasier,anddifferentinformationeventshavebeencompiled.
Newco-operationpartnerswereaddedbecausetheactivityturnedouttobemore
successfulthanexpected.PartnersincludetheMinistryofEconomicAffairsand
Communications,whoisresponsibleforthe10MillionE-Estoniansprogramme,several
representativesofstateinstitutionssuchastheMinistriesoftheInterior,Finance,
Justice,theParliament,andEnterpriseEstonia(EAS)aswellasrepresentativesfromthe
privatesector.
54
Complete
Substantial
Limited
Completion
Not started
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
Potential Impact
None
transparency and
accountability
Civic participation
OGP Value Relevance
High
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Medium
Specificity
TheIRMresearcherassessesthecompletionofthisactivityassubstantial.Someofthe
missingactionshavebeenplannedfortheendof2015andforthebeginningof2016.
Forinstance,thegovernmentisworkingondevelopingadditionale-servicesforeresidents.4
Diditmatter?
Theinterestfore-residencyhasbeenmorepopularthanexpected.Thee-residency
programmewentviralthroughsocialmediaevenbeforethegovernmentbegan
promotingit.E-residentswereabletogoonlineandperformdifferentfunctionsliketax
filings,annualreportsubmissions,shareholdermeetings,andsimplerthingslike
changingacompany’se-mailaddress,whichrequiredvisitinganotarypriortotheeresidencyprogramme.Additionally,visitorsofEstoniacanusethee-residencycardin
localpharmacies,libraries,andsupermarketsasadiscountcard.Throughthisactivity,
EstoniaaimstoincreaseeconomicincomebytheextraincomegeneratedbyEstonian
companieswhoofferservicestoe-residents,notbydirecttaxation.Moreover,Estonia
receivedalotofattentioninworldwidemediachannelswithnomarketingcosts.This
attentioncanincreaseforeigntradeinvestment,tourism,andexportbusiness.In2016,
thegovernmentwantstostartanadvertisingprogrammeintheUStointroducetheeresidencyservicetoattractinternationalinterestinEstonianeconomy,science,and
education.5
Whilethereareseveralbenefitsofe-residencyprogramme,therearealsosome
challenges.TaaviKotka,theHeadoftheEstonianE-residencyProgrammeCouncil,
admittedthate-residentsfindithardtousee-servicesandthatusinge-servicescanbe
especiallychallengingforpeopleunfamiliarwithEstonianculture.6Eveniftheeresidencyprogrammereceivedpositivefeedbackoverall,therearerisksconnectedto
theactivitysuchassecurity,moneylaundering,e-crime,e-identitytheft,e-framing,and
e-terrorism.7Additionally,theprojectmuststayindependentfrompoliticalpowers.Itis
importanttorememberthattheinvestorsofthee-residencyprogrammeareEstonian
taxpayers.
Civilsocietystakeholdersclaimthatitishardtoevaluatetherealoutcomeoftheeresidencybecausetheconceptisnewandstillatanearlystage.Theyaddedthateresidencymayhavereceivedtoomuchattention,therebydetractingfromother
importantissuessuchastransparencyandstakeholders’involvement.Civilsociety
stakeholdersbelievethattheissuesshouldbefixedbeforethegovernmentproceeds
withthisactivity.E-residencyalsowascriticizedfortakingthefocusawayfromother
areassuchaseducationalproblems,challengesfacedbyfoodindustries,andproblems
inthemedicalsystem.
Finally,whilethiscommitmentisinteresting,itisnotclearlyrelevanttoopen
government.Aswritten,itdoesnotincludeaclearelementofaccesstoinformation,
publicaccountabilityorcivicparticipation.
Movingforward
Thee-residencyprogrammehasavarietyofclearnextsteps.Theseincludeimproving
theuser-friendlinessandcreatingregularupdatestoavoidabuse.Further,theeresidencyprogrammehasnotbeenresearchedacademically,anditopensanewfieldin
thestudyofgovernmentandpublicadministration.Questionsexistaroundtheplaceof
e-residencyinthe2018EUregulations,thepoliticalandlegalimplicationsiftheEU
givesEstoniane-residentsanEUe-residency,andtheimplicationsfornation-statesif
thedigital-IDsbecomeadoptedwidely.8
However,forthenextopengovernmentactionplan,stakeholdersshouldincludeonly
commitmentsclearlyrelevanttotheOGPvaluesofopengovernment.Ifstakeholders
55
decidetoincludecommitmentsone-residenceorothere-services,theywillneedto
articulateclearlycommitments’relevancetoaccesstoinformation,public
accountability,orcivicparticipationingovernmentdecisionmaking.
interviews.Thesameappliesforotherclusters.
2KadriHainsalu,“EestiEsimeseksE-ResidendiksSaabEdwardLucas,”Postimees,27November2014,
http://bit.ly/1WNabDQ
3TaaviKotka,“E-Residentsus,RiiklikIdufirma,”Arvamus,Postimees,11October2015,
http://bit.ly/1Rkj0oq
4Riigikantselei,“Tegevus5.4.MitteresidendiDigitaalseIsikutunnistuseVäljaandmiseAlustamine,”
http://bit.ly/1T8KsGS
5Tegevus5.4,http://bit.ly/1T8KsGS
6Kotka,http://bit.ly/1Rkj0oq
7MariannKirsipuu,“OotamatultSuurHuviDigi-IDVastu,”Arvamus,Postimees,21February2015,
http://bit.ly/1RCDryZ
8TaaviKotka;CarlosIvanVargasAlvarezdelCastillo,andKasparKorjus,“EstonianE-Residency:Redefining
theNation-StateintheDigitalEra,”inCyberStudiesProgramme,WorkingPaperNo.3,(UniversityofOxford,
September2015),13,http://bit.ly/1NfgPBv
56
11:Enhancingopendatasupplyandre-usebynongovernmentalactors
6.1:Transformingofopendataportalopendata.riik.eefrompilotusetoso-calledrealuse,
withaguaranteeforbasiclevelorganizationalsupport.
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:30November2014
6.2: Organizing of public competitions for opening data, incl. implementation of pilot
projectsoflinkdata
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:31July2016
6.3:Organizingofeventsfacilitatingtherecyclingofopendata(hackathons,trainingsetc.)
StartDate:1July2014 EndDate:31July2016
EditorialNote:Thisclusterofactivitiesfocusesoncreatingwideruseofopendataby
enablingco-creationprocesseswithnongovernmentalactors.Theenddateforactivity
6.1waspostponedtoJanuary2015;andtheenddateforactivity6.3isforeseenfor
Spring2016.
SupportingInstitution(s):AssociationofInformationTechnologyand
Telecommunications,opendatacommunity,dataownersinthepublicsector
6.1.Opendata
portal
✔
✔
6.2.Openingdata
✔
✔
6.3.Supporting
nongovernmental
opendatause
✔
✔
✔
✔
Complete
Limited
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Note:Undertheoldcriteriaofstarredcommitments,commitments6.1and6.2
wouldhavereceivedstarsbecausetheyaremeasurable,clearlyrelevanttoOGP
valuesaswritten,ofmoderatepotentialimpact,andsubstantiallyorcompletely
implemented.TheIRMupdatedthestarcriteriainearly2015.
Whathappened?
Theseactivitiesaimtocreatewideruseofopendatabyenablingnongovernmental
actorstoparticipateintheco-creationofprocessessuchasnewknowledge,
innovations,andservices.Activity6.1aimstotransformtheopendataportal
opendata.riik.eefrompilotusetofulluse.AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,thisactivity
iscompleted.Theopendataportalopened,andtheorganisationalstructuretokeepthe
portalrunningwascreated.
Substantial
Completion
Notstarted
Transformative
Moderate
Minor
PotentialImpact
None
Tech.andinnov.for
transparencyand
accountability
High
Medium
Low
None
Commitment
Overview
Civicparticipation
OGPValueRelevance
Accessto
information
Specificity
57
Activity6.2aimstoorganisepubliccompetitionsthatopendata.Toachievethegoal,
pilotprojectsthatopendatawerefunded.AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,thisactivity
wascompletedbecausethecompetitionforthebestpilotprojectwasorganisedand
severalpilotprojectstoopendatawerefunded.
Activity6.3aimstoorganiseeventsthatinvolvepublicparticipationintherecyclingand
re-usingofopendata(hackathons,trainings,etc.).Sofar,therehavebeeninformation
days2andsometrainingsaboutopendatarecycling.3AccordingtotheIRMresearcher,
thelevelofcompletionofthisactivityissubstantialbecausemostoftheplanned
activitiesalreadytookplace,butahackathonisstillplannedforSpring2016.
Thisclusterofactivitiesislargelyacontinuationfromthepreviousactionplan2012–
2014.4Itincreasestheambitionlevelconcerningthepubliccompetitionsandthe
recyclingofopendata.In2014,agreenpaperonopendatawaspresentedonregulating
recyclingandre-usageofdata.5ThePublicInformationActestablishedaregulatorybase
foropeninggovernment-helddata.TheActstatedthat,by1January2015,freeaccessto
datacollectionshadtobeguaranteed,andthedatahadtobepublishedinamachinereadableform.6
Diditmatter?
Upgradingtheportal,assetoutbyactivity6.1,willcreatethenecessaryinfrastructure
tofurtherdatause.Theotheractivitiesinthiscluster—organisingcompetitions(6.2)
andhackathons(6.3)—supportgovernmentagencies’publicationofdataandgenerate
nongovernmentalactors’andbusinesses’motivationtore-usedata.Re-usingdatacan
reducethenumberofrequeststogovernmentinstitutionsandtherebyreducethe
bureaucracyandsaveusers’time.7Thepotentialimpactofcommitmentsixismoderate
becauseEstoniadoesnotproduceenoughvaluabledataforbroaderscaleanalysis.The
databasesaretoosmalltocreatevaluableanalysisoutofthem.Uploadingdatais
voluntaryandusingopendatainitscurrentformsometimescanbemorecomplicated
thanmakingofficialinformationrequeststogovernmentinstitutions.Currently,the
availabledataareveryhardtousebecausetheyhavenotbeencleanedandeach
organisationuploadeddatabasedontheirownlogic.Overall,accordingtoacademic,
private,andcivilsocietystakeholders,theusabilityofthedataisverylow.
Therewouldbemorevalue,especiallyforprivatesectororganisations,ifsimilardata
wereavailablefromneighbouringcountries,whichwouldallowformore
comprehensiveanalyses(e.g.fromBalticcountries,Nordiccountries,Centraland
EasternEuropeancountries,etc.).Inthiscontext,EstonianPresidentToomasHendrik
IlvessaidthatEstoniaandFinlandshoulddevelopadataexchangeandpossiblyleadthe
wayincross-borderdigitalco-operation.8
Ontheotherhand,theDeputySecretaryGeneralforCommunicationsandState
InformationSystemsattheMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications,Taavi
Kotka,saidthatmoststateinstitutionshavenotopenedtheirdataandarebreakingthe
law.9Nongovernmentalorganisationsalsopointedoutthatthechallengefacedbythe
governmentistomakethedatabaseknownamongpotentialusersandtokeepthe
databasesconstantlyupdated.
Movingforward
First,theIRMresearcherrecommendscompletingactivitiesthathavenotbecompleted
yet,includingorganizingeventsthatfacilitaterecyclingopendata,likehackathonsor
trainings,evenifthoseeventscannotbehelduntilafterthecurrentOGPactionplanis
replacedinJune2016.
Then,theIRMresearcherrecommendsadditionalworkinthissector.Stakeholders
shouldconsiderthefollowingsuggestionsandobservations:
58
•
•
•
AlthoughEstoniaisknownasane-country,onlyafewdatasetsavailable.Allthe
consultedstakeholdersagreedontheneedtomakeadditionalapplicationsand
datasetsavailable.
Thegovernmentshouldconsiderthecostsandbenefitsofcreatingcivilservant
positions,especiallydedicatedtoopendatamanagement,whichthecountry
currentlydoesnothave.OthergovernmentsliketheUnitedStatesandthe
UnitedKingdomprioritisedopendatabycreatingspecificopendataroles.
Dedicatedcivilservantswillbemoreeffectiveatopeningdataifthatisnotjust
anadditionaltaskamongmanyothers.
Thegovernmentneedswide,basicstandardsonhowdataareuploadedand
whatisconsideredcleandata.PursuingtheFive-StarSchemeforopendataoran
opendatacertificatewouldbeusefultosetgoalsandtoidentifybestpractices.10
Finally,anewcommitmentwithpotentiallymoreimpactcouldrevolvearound
informingpotentialdatabasesusersaboutthevariouspossibilitiesavailabletothem
anddevelopingclear,easy-to-usefeedbackmechanismsfordatausersandproviders.
Forexample,theycouldidentifyprioritydatasetsforrelease.Suchanopenfunction
wouldbeusefulindecidingareasonablenumberandcontentofdatasets.
interviews.Thesameappliesforotherclusters.
2“Ettekanded,”TarkE-Riik,http://bit.ly/1T8KUVK
3“Hommikuseminar:MisOnAvaandmedNingKuidasNeidPraktikasHallata?,”EestiKoolitus-Ja
Konverentsikeskus,http://bit.ly/1WNaRZZ
4“Estonia,”OpenGovernmentPartnership,http://bit.ly/1RpbQfp
5“AvaandmeteRohelineRaamat[OpenDataGreenPaper],”AvaandmetePortaal,
https://opendata.riik.ee/roheline-raamat
6RepublicofEstonia,“PublicInformationAct,”http://bit.ly/1UPL2JK
7InstituteofBalticStudiesandPraxis,E-TeenusteKasutamiseTulemuslikkusJaMõjubyTarmoKalvet,
MarekTilits,andHilleHinsberg(Tallinn,2013),http://bit.ly/1UoNxEi
8RepublicofFinland,“EstonianandFinnishHeadsofStateDiscussedtheFutureofCross-BorderEServices,”Pressrelease,OfficeofthePresident,11November2015,http://bit.ly/1UMhU7h
9“EestiAvaandmeteKasutamistPiirabKohalikTuruolukord,”Uudised,Err,23March2015,
http://bit.ly/1VM4Kqw
10LeighDodds,“Comparingthe5-StarSchemewithOpenDataCertificates,”News,OpenDataInstitute,20
February2015,http://bit.ly/1oaiVIl
59
V.Process:Self-assessment
Thegovernmentcompiledamid-termself-assessmentreportinOctober2015togivean
overviewofthefirstyearoftheactionplan’simplementation.Thereportwasopenfor
publicconsultationfortwoweeks,andtheministriesapprovedit.Theself-assessment
reportdidnotincludedetailedanalysisoftheactionplan’scompliancewiththeprevious
IRMreport’ssuggestions.However,basedonthecontentoftheactionplan,itcanbe
concludedthattherecommendationswerefollowedonlyinpart.
Self-assessmentchecklist
Wastheannualprogressreportpublished?
Yes
Wasitdoneaccordingtoschedule?
No
Isthereportavailableintheadministrativelanguage(s)?
Yes
IsthereportavailableinEnglish?
Yes
Didthegovernmentprovideatwo-weekpubliccommentperiodon
draftself-assessmentreports?
Yes
Wereanypubliccommentsreceived?
No
IsthereportdepositedintheOGPportal?
Yes
Didtheself-assessmentreportincludereviewofconsultationefforts
duringactionplandevelopment?
Yes
Didtheself-assessmentreportincludereviewofconsultationefforts
duringactionplanimplementation?
Yes
Didtheself-assessmentreportincludeadescriptionofthepublic
commentperiodduringthedevelopmentoftheself-assessment?
Yes
Didthereportcoverallofthecommitments?
Yes
Diditassesscompletionofeachcommitmentaccordingtothetimeline
andmilestonesintheactionplan?
No
DidthereportrespondtotheIRMkeyrecommendations(2015+only)? Yes
Summaryofadditionalinformation
TheGovernmentOfficepreparedthegovernment’sself-assessmentreportincooperationwiththerepresentativesoftheministriesthatco-ordinatedtheactionplan’s
activitiesaswellasnongovernmentalorganisations.Accordingtotheexplanatorynote
ofthedraftself-assessmentreport,theGoodPracticeofPublicEngagementwas
followedincompilingthereport.1
60
Thegovernmentfirstsenttheself-assessmentreporttotheOGPCo-ordinatingBoardon
3September2015,inpreparationfortheirintroductionanddiscussionattheBoard’s
meetingon8September2015.ItwasdecidedthatthemembersoftheCo-ordinating
Boardcouldgiveadditionalfeedbackandmakesuggestionstothereportuntil10
September2015.2Thedraftreportwaspublishedfrom12to25September2015for
publicconsultationonthecentralcivicengagementwebsite(www.osale.ee).3Apress
releaseatthebeginningofthepublicconsultationwaspublishedon14September
2015.4Nocommentswerereceivedduringthepublicconsultation.Theself-assessment
reportalsopassedanofficialapprovalroundintheministriesfrom15to25September
2015.Thereportthenwassubmittedtothegovernment’ssessionon28September
2016andthegovernmentdiscussediton1October2015,5adayafterthedeadline(30
September2015).
Theself-assessmentreportassessedthecompletionofcommitmentsaccordingtothe
timelinesetintheactionplan.However,asthedetailsoftheactivitieswerespecified
onlyaftertheadoptionoftheactionplan,thetimeframechangedforsomeactivities.
Theself-assessmentreportreflectedtheupdatedscheduleinitsanalysis.Further,the
actionplandidnotcontainmilestonesorindicatorsfortheactivities.Thesewere
specifiedonlylateralongwiththeotherdetailsofeachactivity.Further,theselfassessment’soverviewofimplementationstatusforeachactivity(includingcompleted
andfurtherwork)isbasedontheupdateddetails.Themid-termself-assessmentreport
concludedthatoutofatotalof23activitiesplanned,fiveactivitieswerefinishedfully
duringthefirstyearofimplementation(originally,sixhadbeenplannedtobe
completed).Thereportfoundthat13activitieswereinprogressinaccordancetothe
initialschedule,andthetimeframeforfiveactivitieschanged.6
Whentheresultsoftheself-assessmentreportwerediscussedattheCo-ordinating
Board’smeetingon8September2015,itwassuggestedthatthegeneralpublicshould
beinformedoftheresultsoftheOGPactivities.TheGovernmentOfficerespondedthat
broadercommunicationwouldcommenceafterthecompletionofActivity1.3(acivic
engagementsectiononthenewgovernmentwebsite),allowingforinvolvement-related
informationtobeprovidedinoneplace.7
Follow-uponpreviousIRMrecommendations
Thegovernment’sself-assessmentreportdidnotincludeaseparatesectiononhowthe
resultsofthepreviousIRMreportwereusedtoimprovetheprocessofthedevelopment
andimplementationoftheactionplan.DirectreferencetotheIRM’srecommendations
wasmadeonlyingeneraltermsinboththeself-assessmentandtheactionplan.They
statedthattherecommendationswereconsideredoneofthesourcesofinputfor
severalissues:determiningpriorityareasandotheractionplancontent,decidingonthe
institutionresponsibleforOGP,andestablishingaforumforco-operationandthe
principleofphase-basedimplementationoftheactionplan.
Intermsofcontent,theactionplandidnotrespondtoalloftheIRM’ssuggestions.
BelowisanoverviewofthepreviousIRMrecommendations,andthecurrentIRM
researcher’sanalysisonthenewactionplan’scompliancewiththem.
Stakeholderengagement:
•
Recommendation1:Thegovernmentshouldreachouttothepublicwhile
renewingtheactionplan.Variousmeasureswereusedtoraiseawarenessof
OGPandtoinvolvestakeholdersintheactionplandevelopmentand
implementation.Theconsultationsincludeddifferentnongovernmental
participants.Inadditiontocivilsocietyorganisations(CSOs),theprivatesector
wasrepresentedbytwoemployers’associations.TheTradeUnion
61
Confederationalsoparticipated.Thiswasanimprovementfromtheprevious
actionplandevelopmentandimplementation.
Nevertheless,thecircleofstakeholdersthatparticipatedremainedlimited.The
OGPConsultationBoardandtheOGPCo-ordinatingBoardhadvirtuallythesame
nongovernmentalparticipants.Inaddition,althoughthelocalgovernmentsand
theParliamentwereconsulted,theirparticipationinthedevelopmentand
implementationphasewaslimited.Despiteawareness-raisingandpublic
consultationefforts,itisunknownwhethertheawarenessofthegeneralpublic
increased.
•
Recommendation2:Provideaclearagendaforconsultationandengagein
proactivecommunication.Thetimelineandengagementplanforactionplan
development(includinginformationonplannedactivities,targetgroups,and
expectedresultsofeachactivity)wasavailableontheGovernmentOffice’s
website,althoughtheconsultationshadstartedbeforeitwaspublished.
Invitationstoparticipateindraftingtheactionplanweresenttodifferent
parties,dependingonthecontributionexpectedfromthem.Forinstance,the
participantsinvolvedintheOGPConsultationBoardwereinvitedtoparticipate
atthebeginningofthepreparations.However,thegeneralpublicandother
partiesnotinvolvedintheactionplan’sinitialdevelopmentwereinvitedor
informedonlyinthefinalstagesofthedrafting.
•
Recommendation3:ThegovernmentshouldcreatespaceforCSOsto
engageinimplementingandmonitoringthecommitments.The
recommendationwasfollowedwhentheofficialOGPCo-ordinatingBoardwas
createdtooverseetheimplementationoftheactionplanandtomakeOGPrelateddecisions.Nongovernmentalorganisationsalsowereincludedascooperationpartnersintheimplementationofseveralactivities.Forinstance,the
EstonianCo-operationAssemblyistheinstitutionresponsibleforthe
implementationofoneactivity.
OwnershipandscopeofOGP
•
Recommendation4:Defineclearresponsibilityandownershipbyonelead
agency,andsetupatransparentmechanismforco-ordinatingOGP.The
recommendationwasheededwhentheGovernmentOfficewasdesignated
responsiblefortheco-ordinationofOGP.Co-ordinationwasenhancedwiththe
creationoftheOGPCo-ordinatingBoard,ledbytheSecretaryofState.
•
Recommendation5:Expandtheactionplanbysubnationallevelactivities.
Localgovernmentassociationswereinvolvedasco-operationpartnersinthe
implementationofsomeactivitiesintheactionplan,andsomeactivitiesaffect
localgovernments.However,noseparateactivitieswereplannedforlocal
governments.
•
Recommendation6:ExpandingtheactionplanwiththeParliament
activities.TheParliamentwasinvolved,butitsinvolvementhasbeenlimited.
TheParliamentwasconsultedduringtheactionplandevelopment,andthe
Parliamentisaco-operationpartnerforoneParliament-relatedactivityplanned
withintheactionplan.
Ambitionoflevelofcommitmentsandoverallactionplan
•
Recommendation7:EstoniashouldselectOGP-relatedtopicsthatare
regardedasambitious(i.e.,exceedingthepresentrateofperformance).
Theambitionleveloftheactionplancanbeconsideredmodestandshallow.
Manyoftheactivitiesincludedintheactionplanwereplannedalreadyorwere
62
intheprocessofbeingplannedbytheministriesinotherstrategies.
Nevertheless,ofalltheactivitiesalreadyplanned,theaimwastoselectthemost
ambitiousonestoincludeintheactionplan.8
MeasurementofcommitmentsandOGPgoals
•
Recommendation8:Setclearbaselineswithassociatedindicatorsand
targetlevelsofachievementsofcommitments.Theactionplanfor20142016stilldidnotincludeindicatorsandmethodsforverifyingprogress.The
detaileddescriptionsofactivities(includingmilestonesandassociated
indicators)werespecifiedonlyaftertheactionplan’sadoption.Institutions
responsibleforeachactivitydidthiswithconcernedpartieswhoseactivityarea
relatedtoanactivity.TheOGPCo-ordinatingBoardapprovedthedetailed
descriptions,andtheGovernmentOffice’swebsitepublishedthem.Inaddition,
aspartofrecommendationeight,thepreviousIRMreportsuggestedthatitmay
provenecessarytoabandonorre-structuresomeexistingcommitmentsorto
addnewcommitmentstotheactionplanduringtheactionplanimplementation.
Thissuggestionwastakenintoaccount,andtheimplementationoftheaction
planfor2014-2016wasdesignedtobemoreflexibleandphase-based.It
allowedactivitiestobeimplementedstage-by-stage,andadjustmentswere
madetotheactivitieswhenevernecessary.9
1“EestiTegevuskavaTäitmiseAruanneAvatudValitsemisePartnerlusesOsalemisel,”Eelnõude
Infosüsteem,September2015,1,http://bit.ly/1SaTMoZ
2LiisKasemets,AvatudValitsemisePartnerluseKoordineerivKogu(Meetingprotocol,Tallinn,8September
2015),1-2,http://bit.ly/1XRKRwB
3OsalusveebiHaldabRiigikantselei,EestiTegevuskavaTäitmiseAruanneAvatudValitsemisePartnerluse
Osalemisel[PublicConsultationontheSelf-AssessmentReport]byIlonaKään(Report,12September2015),
http://bit.ly/1Rr4Gt8
4LiisKasemets,“AVPTegevuskavaTäitmiseVahearuanneOnAvalikulKonsultatsioonil,”Pressreleaseon
thebeginningofpublicconsultationonself-assessmentreport,GovernmentOffice,14September2015,
http://bit.ly/22zUzuh
5KristiinaTiimus,“EestiOnKaasanudVabaühendusiAvatudValitsemisePartnerlusseKõigeParemini,“
Uudised,Riigikantselei,1October2015,http://bit.ly/1UgYeIQ
ontheImplementationoftheActionPlanbytheGovernmentOffice(Tallinn,2015),10,http://bit.ly/1ShJ5Ds
7Kasemets,2,http://bit.ly/1XRKRwB
8Riigikantselei,“Kokkuvote30.Aprillil2014RiigikantseleisToimunudAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseII
Noupidamisest[SummaryoftheOGPConsultationBoard’sMeetingon30April2014],”2-3,30April2014,
http://bit.ly/1Sb0Sd0
63
VI.Countrycontext
Thissectionplacestheactionplancommitmentsinthebroadernationalcontextand
discussestheconcretenextstepsforthenextactionplan.Thekeyadditionalpointsof
Estonia’scontextinvolveparticipation,localopengovernment,corruption,andtechnology.
Partnershipbetweenpublicauthoritiesandcivilsociety,inclusionof
nongovernmentalactors
Estoniahasbeenconsideredsuccessfulininvolvingnongovernmentalpartiesintothe
development,implementation,andmonitoringoftheOGPactionplan.1Inaddition,
basedontheUSAIDCivilSocietyOrganisation(CSO)SustainabilityIndex,Estoniaisa
frontrunnerinCentralandEasternEuropeandEurasia.TheUSAIDCSOSustainability
Index’sanalysisconcludesthatCSOsinEstoniahaveasupportivelegalenvironment,a
strongsupportsystem,apositivepublicimage,andhavebeenconsideredstrong
advocatesandserviceproviders.2CSOsareallowedtooperatefreelywithoutfearof
harassment.
Theinclusionofnongovernmentalstakeholdersingovernmentprocesseshasreceived
specialattentioninEstoniaformorethanadecade.In2002,theParliamentapproved
theEstonianCivilSocietyDevelopmentConcept(theConcept)3thatdeterminedthe
principlesforpartnershipbetweenpublicauthoritiesandcivilsociety.TheConcept
createdaframeworkforstrategicdevelopmentofcivilsociety,increasingcitizens’
activityandstrengtheningdemocracyinEstonia.Moreover,severallegalactsregulate
inclusionofnongovernmentalactorsinpolicy-making,includingtheConstitution,the
LawonPublicInformation,theLocalGovernmentOrganisationAct,theRulesofthe
GovernmentoftheRepublic,theRegulationontheLegislativeDraftingofDraftActsin
ParliamentaryProceedings,andtheRulesforGoodLegislativePracticeandLegislative
Drafting.Thegeneralframeworkcreatedvariousentrypointsfornongovernmental
participants.Inaddition,guidanceonstakeholderengagementhasbeenprovided.For
instance,in2014,anewversionofthehandbookonnongovernmentalstakeholder
engagementwascreatedforpublicadministratorsandCSOs.4Finally,followingthe
GoodPracticeofPublicEngagement5isrequiredatvariousinstances.
TheimplementationofvaluesandprinciplessetoutintheEstonianCivilSociety
DevelopmentConcepthasbeenpromotedwiththeadoptionofCivilSociety
DevelopmentPlans.ThegovernmentapprovedthelatestCivilSocietyDevelopmentPlan
2015-2020on19February2015.Thisplanfocusesontwopriorityareasthatshould
strengthenthemainfunctionsofCSOsinsociety:(1)participationofCSOsand(2)their
roleinpreventingandsolvingsocietalproblems.Thedevelopmentplancontinuesto
developandtoensureatraditionofademocraticandopensociety.
Asaresultofvariousefforts,publicadministratorsincreasinglyacknowledgethe
importanceandpossibilitiesofferedbyincludingnongovernmentalstakeholders.6
Nevertheless,despitethefavourableframeworkandadvancementsovertheyears,
variouschallengesstillaffectthequalityofinclusionofnongovernmentalparties.The
shortcomingsrelatetobothsides.Ononehand,thepublicauthorityisnotalways
interested,willing,orcapableand,hence,itisnotalwayssuccessfulinengaging
nongovernmentalparties.Ontheotherhand,nongovernmentalpartiesdonotalways
participateorcontribute.
Fromthegovernment’sside,ithasbeennotedthatdecisionmakersdonotprioritise
offeringopportunitiesforparticipationorinterestgroupinvolvement.Although
knowledgeofitexists,thereisalackofresources,creativity,andwillingnessnecessary
formeaningfulengagement.7Thus,nongovernmentalparties’engagementisnotalways
64
seenasanopportunity,butratherasanobligationandasanactivityseparatefromthe
restofpolicy-makingprocesses.Initsmostcommonform,inclusionislimitedtoa
formalprocessofinformingthegeneralpublicandnongovernmentalactorsand
collectingtheircommentsonaparticularissue(e.g.adraftact).
Moreover,bythetimenongovernmentalactorsareaskedtoparticipate,thesubstantive
policydecisionsoftenhavebeenmadealready.Thisleaveslittle,ifany,roomfortheir
input.Thisalsomeansthatinterestgroups’suggestionsthatareofatransformative
nature(e.g.donotspecifyonlydetails)maynotbeconsidered,especiallywhen
inclusiontakesplacetoolate.8Thenongovernmentalparticipantsinpolicy-making
processesoftenareoverburdened,andinformationonvariousongoingprocessesis
difficulttofind.
Inaddition,thecircleofnongovernmentalactorsinvolvedisoftennarrow.Notenough
co-operationorparticipationmeasuresarepracticedtowouldallowboththe
experiencedandlessexperiencedCSOs(withregardtoparticipationingeneralorina
certainsubjectarea)toparticipateindiscussions.Becauseofaninabilityto
communicatewithcivilsocietyorbecauseofalackofcontactwiththem,notenough
diverseandrelevantopinionsareincluded.Ithasbeennotedthatthisiswhypublic
administrationshouldbemorediverseinitscompositionandshouldrepresentvarious
socialgroups.9Ithasbeenfoundthatconsultationwithnongovernmentalorganisations
andexpertstakesplacemoreoftenthanisdocumentedintheexplanatorynotesofdraft
acts.10InasmallstatelikeEstonia,informalcommunicationinpolicy-makingoccurs
easilyandisnotsomethingextraordinary.
TheCivilSocietyDevelopmentPlan2015-2020statedthatacoreproblemofcivil
societyengagementisdivergentexpectationsonparticipation:differentpartiesdonot
understandthetasks,needs,andopportunitiesoftheoppositeside.Whilethepublic
sectormightexpectproposalsfromnongovernmentalorganisationsthatareclear,well
thought-through,andthattakeintoaccountthelargerpicture,nongovernmental
organisationsmightexpectsimplerparticipationopportunities,moreopenness,and
willingnessfordiscussionsandthinkingalong.Thenewdevelopmentplanaimedto
replaceconsultativeengagementwithparticipationandco-operation.Engagementwas
notconsideredatargetonitsownbutratheroneofthemethodstoimplementvarious
actions.
DespitetheincreasedviabilityandvisibilityofsomeCSOs,thereareconcernsaboutthe
willingnessandcapacityofCSOsmoregenerally.NotallCSOshavethenecessary
competency,time,andmoneytocontributetopolicy-makingprocesses.Thisiswhy
oftenonlythemostcapable,advocacy-oriented,andstrongestorganisationscanfocus
onensuringthatthepublicsectortakesintoaccounttheirinput.
Anarrowcircleofnongovernmentalpartiesisableorwillingtocommittoparticipate
cannegativelyinfluencethequalityofdecisions.Participationisespeciallyimportantin
theagenda-settingphase,andfailuretohaveavarietyofinterestsorinterestgroups
representedatthattimecanresultinanunbalancedrepresentationthroughoutthe
process.Fortheparticipationtobesuccessful,itisimportantthattheCSOsfocuson
democraticallyfindingthebestpersonsororganisationstorepresenttheirfield’s
interestsinpolicy-makingandfindingopportunitiestoco-operatewithother
nongovernmentalorganisations.
OpengovernanceatthelocalgovernmentlevelandintheParliament
DespitereceivinglittleattentionfromtheOGPactionplan2014-2016,opengovernance
principlesareimportantinlocalgovernmentsandintheParliament.InEstonia,the
localgovernmentisthelevelofpublicadministrationclosesttothecitizens,andithasa
varietyofresponsibilitiesdirectlyaffectingthewell-beingofinhabitants.Givenits
65
significantrole,opengovernanceprinciplesshouldbefollowedbythelocal
governments.Severallocalgovernmentunits(e.g.Tartu,Viljandi,Kuressaare,andElva)
alreadystartedtofocusonincreasingtheopennessoflocalgovernancebyusing
participatorybudgeting.
Inaddition,attheinitiativeoftheE-GovernanceAcademyofEstonia,aspecialproject
called“OpenGovernancePartnershipinLocalGovernments”startedin2014to
introduceopengovernanceanditsvaluestolocalgovernments.Theprojectwilllasttwo
yearsandbeadministeredinco-operationwiththeNetworkofEstonianNon-profit
Organisations.TheprojectwasnotplannedwithintheOGPactionplan2014-2016,but
theactionplanstatedthatthe“co-operationprojectpresentsagoodopportunityto
learnhowtodesignsimilarprojects,sothattheexperienceaccumulatedatthelocal
levelmayturnouttobesustainablyusable.“11Withinthisproject,asetofinstructions
hasbeencompiledtoguidetheprocessofimplementingopengovernanceprinciplesin
localgovernments.12
Demandsformoreopennessandnongovernmentalstakeholderinclusioninthe
Parliamentalsohavebeenraised.Specialfocushasbeenputonincreasingtheopenness
ofparliamentarycommittees.Inaddition,ithasbeenconsiderednecessarytoengage
nongovernmentalstakeholdersmoreactivelyinthediscussionsofthecommittees.It
hasbeennotedthatalthoughtheRiigikoguRulesofProcedureandtheInternalRules
Actestablishprinciplesthatrecommendinclusion,actualinclusionvariesbetween
differentparliamentarycommittees.Well-argueddiscussionsonpolicy-makingand
policyoptionsrarelytakesplaceinparliamentarycommitteesand,giventhat,itisnot
necessarilyinthebestinterestsoftheparliamentariansforthediscussionstobemade
public.13
Corruptioncontinuestooccur
BasedonTransparencyInternational’sCorruptionPerceptionsIndex2014,Estonia
ranked26thoutof175evaluatedcountries.Accordingtotheindex,perceivedcorruption
inthepublicsectorhasimprovedinrecentyears.Onascalefrom0(highlycorrupt)to
100(veryclean),Estoniareceived64pointsin2012,68pointsin2013and69pointsin
2014.14Nevertheless,corruptioncontinuestobeanissue.In2014,101corruptioncases
wereregisteredatthelevelofthecentralstateandagenciesadministeredbythestate
(includingstate-ownedcompaniesorfoundations).In2014,anadditional34cases
occurredattheleveloflocalgovernmentsandagenciesadministeredbylocal
governments,and163casesoccurredintheprivatesector.15Recentcorruptioncases
thathavebeenmadepublicalsoemphasisetheexistenceofcorruption.Forinstance,in
AugustandSeptember2015,allegationsofcorruptionwerelevelledinseparatecases
against:(1)theCEOandboardmemberofstate-ownedPortofTallinnfortakingbribes,
includinginarecentcontracttopurchasenewferriesforthecompany;16(2)theTartu
ruralmunicipalitymayorforprovidingfinancestoanorganisationwithwhichhewas
affiliatedandforembezzlingtheassetsofthemunicipality;17and(3)tothemayorofthe
largestmunicipality,thecapitalTallinncity,foracceptingpropertiesandfavoursas
bribesonbehalfofhimselfandhisparty.18Thepresenceofcorruptioncasesatthelocal
levelonceagainhighlightstheneedtoimproveopengovernanceinlocalgovernments.
In2013,theAnti-CorruptionStrategy2013-2020wasadopted.TheStrategyaimedto
promotecorruptionawareness,toimprovetransparencyofdecisionsandactions,to
developinvestigativecapabilitiesofinvestigativebodies,andtopreventionof
corruptionthatcouldjeopardisenationalsecurity.19TheStrategydeemeditimportant
thatthelegislativedraftingandpoliticaldecisionmakingprocessesshouldbe
transparent,namelythatitshouldbepossibletounderstandwhoinfluencedthe
decisionsandhowtheyweremade.AccordingtotheStrategy,entrepreneursperceive
corruptionasmoreprevalentatthecentralstatelevel.Nevertheless,localgovernments
66
arenotimmunetocorruption,whichrelatestothelackoftransparencyofactivities,
weakinternalauditsystems,conflictsofinterestsinpublicprocurements,and
preferentialtreatmentinvarioustransactions.TheStrategyhighlightedthatoneofthe
areaswherecorruptionisprevalentispublicprocurement(bothatthelocalandstate
levels),duetothelargeamountoffinancialresourcesandhighdiscretionarypowerof
decisionmakersinvolvedintheprocesses.
Accordingtothe2014annualprogressreportoftheAnti-CorruptionStrategy,most
attentionwasonincreasingpeople’sawarenessofcorruption,ontransparencyof
variousfinancialtransactions,andonorganisationalanalyticalcapacityofEstoniato
dealwithcorruption.Itistooearlytoevaluatehowsuccessfultheseactivitieswere,but
theseactivitiesmostprobablyhavehadsomepositiveimpact,givenEstonia’s
improvementsinTransparencyInternationalCorruptionPerceptionsIndex.
Inaddition,basedontheGroupofStatesagainstCorruption(GRECO)’s
recommendationsmadetoEstoniain2012,measureshavebeentakentoprevent
corruptioninParliament.Forinstance,aCodeofConductformembersofParliament
wasadoptedinDecember2014.Inaddition,anewsystemfordeclaringpublicofficials’
assetsandinterestslaunchedin2014.Itinvolvedthedigitisationofdatacollectionanda
storagesystem.However,GRECOemphasisedthatthesupervisionoftheCodeof
ConductandthesystemforthedeclarationofassetsandinterestsbytheAntiCorruptionSelectCommitteeofParliamentshouldbeimproved,andtheawarenessof
parliamentariansshouldbeincreasedfurther.20
Intheprocessofrisingcivicparticipationindebates,CSOshavebecomemoreactivein
uniting,representing,andexpressingtheviewsoflike-mindedactors.Withthe
professionalisationofCSOs’advocacyroleandwithmoreactiveparticipationinpolicymaking,theneedfordevelopinglobbyingruleshasbeenstressedtoensure
transparencyinpolicy-making.21GRECOpaidspecialattentiontotheParliamentand
recommendedintroducing“rulesonhowmembersofParliamentengagewithlobbyists
andotherthirdpartieswhoseektoinfluencethelegislativeprocess.”22TheAntiCorruptionStrategy2013-2020tookthisintoaccount.Itaimstodevelopgoodpractice
andlobbyrulesforthepublicsector’sinteractionwithinterestgroupsin2015-2016.
Currently,discussionsarefocusingonthechoicesforbetterregulationoflobbying.
Informationsocietyandtechnology
Estoniaisknownforbeingane-stateduetoitssuccessinusingtechnologytoimprove
theprovisionofpublicservices(e-services)andinenhancingpossibilitiesfor
democraticparticipation.Supportedbycitizenextensiveuseandentrepreneurs,several
pioneeringtechnologicalsolutionswerelaunched,includingtheelectronicidentitycard
thatallowstheprovisionofelectronicsignaturesandelectronicvoting.Accordingtothe
OpenDataBarometer2014,Estoniaranks13thoutof86countriesbasedonitsuseof
opendata.Basedontheanalysis,Estoniawaspartofthegroupofcountrieswithhighcapacityintermsofreadiness,implementation,andimpactofopengovernmentdata.23
ThePrinciplesofEstonianInformationPolicyadoptedbytheParliamentin1998and
renewedin2006providesthegeneralframeworkforthedevelopmentofinformation
society.Basedonthisgeneralframework,theEstonianInformationSocietyStrategy
2020wasadoptedin2013todirectthedevelopmentofinformationsociety.The
Strategyincludesafocusonimprovingtheuseandaccessibilityoftechnologyaswellas
thesafeuseofdatainthefieldofpolicy-makingandpublicadministration.TheStrategy
hasthemainpurposesofguaranteeingawell-functioningenvironmentinEstonia,
supportingtheextensiveuseofICT,andcreatingsmartsolutions,whichinturnwill
increaseeconomiccompetitiveness,thewell-beingofpeople,andefficiencyof
governance.
67
In2014,thegreenpaperonthemachine-readablepublicationofEstonianpublicdata
wasadopted,complementingtheInformationSocietyStrategy.Itofferedanintegrated
andsystematicapproachtoopendatapolicyinEstonia,discussingthecurrentsituation,
problemsandchallenges,andgivingdirectionsforthefuture.Thegreenpaperwas
especiallyimportantduetothePublicInformationActrequirementthatfrom1January
2015allpublicsectordatabaseshadtobedownloadableinmachine-readableformat.24
Initsoverviewoftheuseandpreservationofstateassetsin2013-2014,theNational
AuditOfficefoundthatthegreenpaper’sweaknesseswerethatitsimplementationwas
voluntaryandnoclearguidelineswereprovidedonhowpublicagenciesshouldmake
dataaccessibletothepublic.25
Moreover,loadingdatabasesintothedatarepositoryhadanextremelyslowstart.The
requirementwasknownsince2012,andaspecialopendataportal(opendata.riik.ee)
wasopenedinJanuary2015,butbyMarch2015,onlyabout10publicsector
informationholdershadmadetheirmachine-readabledataavailablethere.26However,
ithasbeennotedthatitishardtocriticiseinformationholders(i.e.publicsector
organisations)becausethegreenpaperonthemachine-readablepublicationof
Estonianpublicdata,theguidingmaterialforsuchacomplicatedprocedure,was
approvedtoolate.Itwasapprovedtwoyearsaftertherespectivelegalprovisionwas
passedandonlyamonthbeforeitsimplementationdeadline.
AccordingtoDirective2013/37/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof26
June2013amendingDirective2003/98/EContheRe-useofPublicSectorInformation,
Estonia(amongotherEUmemberstates)hadtoensuretheadoptionofnecessary
implementingactstoensurecomplianceby18July2015.27However,thetransposition
oftheDirectivewasdelayedbecausethelegalanalysis,theassessmentofcomments,the
assessmentofamendmentproposalssubmittedintheapprovalround,andresolving
disagreementstooklongerthaninitiallypredicted.ByOctober2015,thedraftact
changingPublicInformationActandothernecessarylegalactshadbeensubmittedto
theParliamentforapproval.
Stakeholderpriorities
Thestakeholders’prioritiesfromthecurrentactionplanweremainlyconnectedto
publicparticipation,publicbudgeting,andimprovingpublicservices.Basedonthe
commentsmadeduringpublicconsultation,itcanbesaidthattopicsnotincludedinthe
actionplanbutalsoconsideredimportantbythestakeholderswereenhancinganticorruptionactivitiesandpromotingopengovernanceatthelocallevel.Forinstance,
withregardtocorruptionprevention,theOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable(CSR)suggested
thatspecialmeasuresaimedatensuringtheethicsofpublicofficialsandpreventing
corruptionatthelocallevelshouldbeincludedintheactionplan.TheOGPCSRalso
suggestedthatmeasuresshouldbeadoptedfortheprotectionofwhistle-blowers,and
thetransparencyofpoliticalparties’fundingshouldbeincreasedbyspecifyingthe
requirementsforreportingonmediacoverageandassociatedcostsduringelection
campaigns.
Inaddition,theOGPCSRfoundthatthegovernmentshouldplanaprogrammeforthe
promotionofopengovernanceprinciplesandapplicationsonthelocalgovernment
level.TheOGPCSRalsorecommendedthatlocalgovernmentsfacilitatetheuseof
participatorybudgetingasanewengagementmeasure.28However,thesesuggestions
werenotincludedintheactionplan.
Finally,theOGPCSRalsoprioritisedfacilitatingopengovernanceintheParliament,
whichreceivedlittleattentionintheactionplan.Accordingtotherepresentativeofthe
E-GovernanceAcademy,theeffortsattheexecutivegovernmentlevelarenotenoughto
haveabreakthroughinestablishedpracticesofpolicy-makingandstategovernanceor
68
toachievesignificantadvancementsintheimplementationofopengovernance
principles.Accordingtotherepresentative,thisalsoneedstheparticipationofthe
legislativebranchofgovernment,whichshouldserveasanexample.29
Scopeoftheactionplaninrelationtothenationalcontext
Itisdifficulttoestimatetheactualcontributionoftheactionplanasmanyoftheaction
plan’sactivitieswereplannedalreadyinotherstrategies,workdocuments,etc.,before
itsadoptionwithintheframework.Duringtheactionplandevelopment,itwasstressed
thattheactivitiesalreadyplannedbythepublicauthoritiesshouldbereportedandthe
mostambitiousoneswouldbeselectedtobeincludedintheactionplan.30Perhapsthis
iswhynoseparateresourceswereprovidedsolelyfortheimplementationoftheaction
planandwhypublicadministratorsconsideritanadditionalactivity.Byrelyingon
initiativesthatwereplannedalready,thelevelofambitionoftheactionplanremains
limited.WhileOGPshouldcomplementexistinginitiatives,OGPrepresentsan
opportunitytogobeyondthestatusquo.AstheArticlesofGovernancestate,these
commitmentsshouldbe“ambitiousandgobeyondacountry’scurrentpractice.”31
Giventheoverallnationalcontext,theactivitiesplannedwiththeactionplancreate
opportunitiesfortheadvancementofopengovernance.Nevertheless,theiractual
impactdependsonhowwelltheactivitiesareimplementedandusedbytheirtarget
groups.Forinstance,iftheinformationonparticipation,themeasurespromotingearlystageparticipation,orthee-servicesarenotusedbytheplannedbeneficiaries,the
expectedresultswillbelimited.
Theactionplanfailedtoprioritisethepromotionofethicsandcorruptionprevention
forpublicofficials.Corruptioncontinuestobeaproblem,butothermeasures(outsideof
theactionplan)areusedtoaddresstheissue.Inaddition,theactionplan’sfocuson
localgovernmentsandtheParliamentislimited,althoughcertainlyneededandhavethe
potentialtoadvanceopengovernance.Nongovernmentalstakeholders(especiallythe
OGPCSR)helpedtohighlighttheimportanceofthesetopics.Atthelocalgovernment
level,theOGPCSRisaleaderandpioneerinpromotingthepracticeofopengovernance
principlesinmunicipalitiesthroughitsowninitiativeoutsideoftheactionplan’s
framework.
1OpenGovernmentPartnership,ImprovingGovernment-CivilSocietyInteractionsWithinOGPbyMary
Francoli,AlinaOstling,andFabroSteibel(PolicyBrief,July2015),http://bit.ly/1JO9gdD
2UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment,The2014CSOSustainabilityIndexforCentraland
EasternEuropeandEurasia(2015),77.
3RiigiTeataja,EestiKodanikuühiskonnaArenguKontseptsiooniHeakskiitmine(Report,2002),
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/231276
4EMSL,Kaasamine:AvalikusSektorisJaVabakonnasbyUrmoKübarandHilleHinsberg(Report,Tallinn,
2014),http://bit.ly/1oaek8P
5KaasamiseHeaTava,Riigikantselei,https://riigikantselei.ee/et/kaasamise-hea-tava
6OttLumi,“AvatudJaTõenduspõhisePoliitikaSuunas.HuvipõhinePoliitika:Võimalused,Ohud,
Tasakaalud,”inEestiInimarenguAruanne2014/2015(Tallinn,SAEestiKoostööKogu,2015),267.
7KodanikuühiskonnaArengukava2015-2020(Tallinn,2015),16,http://bit.ly/1Uf88KX
8AndresEinmann,“KariKäsper:EestisEiOsataHuvigruppeÕigusloomesseKaasata,”Eesti,Postimees,21
January2015,http://bit.ly/1RkynNy
9Einmann,http://bit.ly/1RkynNy
10Käthe-RiinTull,HuvigruppideKaasaminePoliitilistesseOtsustusprotsessidesse:HaridusseaduseEelnõude
AnalüüsiNäitelEestis(Bachelor’sthesis,Tartu,2013),14-15.
12RetseptikogumAVPKOVKasutuselevõtuks,http://bit.ly/1SbkmOR
13MarikaKirch,“MiksSaadikudNiiPaaniliseltAvalikustamistKardavad?,”Arvamus,Postimees,20March
2015,http://bit.ly/1Rqodrq
14"CorruptionPerceptionsIndex2014:Results,“TransparencyInternational,http://bit.ly/1tLovwg
69
15Kätlin-ChrisKruusmaaandUrvoKlopets,"Korruptsioon,“KuritegevusEestis,2014,63,availableat
https://wwwkorruptsioon.rik.ee/sites/www.korruptsioon.ee/files/elfinder/dokumendid/kuritegevuse_at_
p13_korruptsioon.pdfandhttp://www.korruptsioon.ee/et/korruptsioon-eestis/statistika
16"AuthoritiesDetainPortofTallinnCEOonCorruptionAllegations,“News.err.ee,26August2015,
http://bit.ly/1WOvZz4
17"TartuVallavanemaleEsitatiKahtlustusKorruptsioonisJaVaraOmastamises,“Uudised,Err.ee,29
September2015,http://bit.ly/1XSWJP7
18"SavisaarNamedSuspectinBriberyCase,“News.err.ee,22September2015,http://bit.ly/22L1kGr
19Anti-CorruptionStrategy2013-2020,Korruptsioon.ee,2,http://bit.ly/1EVsn8o
20CouncilofEurope,FourthEvaluationRound:CorruptionPreventioninRespectofMembersofParliament,
JudgesandProsecutorsbytheGroupofStatesagainstCorruption(GRECO)(Compliancereport:Estonia,
2015),8-9,21,http://bit.ly/1VNDKXJ
21USAID,2014CSOSustainabilityIndex,82;OttLumi,“AvatudJaTõenduspõhisePoliitikaSuunas.
HuvipõhinePoliitika:Võimalused,Ohud,Tasakaalud,”inEestiInimarenguAruanne2014/2015(Tallinn,SA
EestiKoostööKogu,2015),268.
22FourthEvaluationRound,2,http://bit.ly/1VNDKXJ
23WorldWideWebFoundation,OpenDataBarometerGlobalReport:SecondEditionbyTimDavies,RaedM.
Sharif,andJoseM.Alonso(2015),8,34,http://bit.ly/1GAUg3g
24RiigiTeataja,PublicInformationAct,article582(3),22December2014,http://bit.ly/1XSYE6i
25AnnualReportbytheNationalAuditOfficetoParliament,OverviewoftheUseandPreservationofState
Assetsin2013-2014(Tallinn,2014),53,http://bit.ly/21KP6vc
26“EestiAvaandmeteKasutamistPiirabKohalikTuruolukord,”Uudised,Err.ee,23March2015,
http://bit.ly/1VM4Kqw
27EUR-Lex,Directive2013/37/EUoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof26June2013Amending
Directive2003/98/EContheRe-useofPublicSectorInformation,26June2013,http://bit.ly/1T9Fbiz
28“TagasisideAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseTegevuskava2014-2016KoostamiseProtsessileKokkuvote
[SummaryofFeedbackontheActionPlanDevelopmentProcess],”Riigikantselei,6,http://bit.ly/1T6lvvH
29LiiaHänni,“ParlamentidePositiivneHõlmamineAVP-sse,”AvatudValitsemisePartnerlu,5October2015,
http://bit.ly/1RBjsuq
30Riigikantselei,“Kokkuvote30.Aprillil2014RiigikantseleisToimunudAvatudValitsemisePartnerluseII
Noupidamisest[SummaryoftheOGPConsultationBoard’sMeetingon30April2014],”2,30April2014,
http://bit.ly/1Sb0Sd0
31“OrganizationalGovernance&InformationDisclosure,”OpenGovernmentPartnership,
http://bit.ly/22ArK0P
70
VII.Generalrecommendations
ThissectionrecommendsgeneralnextstepsforEstonia’sOGPparticipationingeneral,
ratherthanforspecificcommitments.Thefollowingsuggestionsareideastoconsider
beforepreparingthenextactionplan.Whileitisadvisabletoconsideralltheissuesraised,
thesewillhavetobebalancedwithsuggestionsmadebytheteampreparingtheaction
plan.
ThefollowingsuggestionsarebasedontheassumptionthatEstoniawillcontinuebeing
anactivepartnerinOGPandthatitwillpaymoreattentiontotheOGPactionplaninthe
future.Accordingtothefocusgroupsandinterviewees,thecurrentactionplanisoften
seenmerelyasanadditionalframeworkordocumentthatdoesnotofferadditional
valuetoexistingactivities.ThisisafrequentchallengeforOGP-participatingcountries,
andEstoniaisnotaloneinneedingtofaceit.Inthissense,atbest,stakeholders
currentlyseeOGPasproviding“promotional”and“educational”value.Thus,theIRM
researcherfirstsuggeststhatthegovernmentandotherstakeholdersthoroughly
discusstheroleandplaceoftheOGPandtheactionplanwithinEstonia’sstrategicand
politicaldocuments.
Crosscuttingrecommendations
Afterthisinitialdiscussion,theIRMresearcheroffersavarietyofcross-cutting
recommendations.Thesecentreonthetopicsofprocess,format,andcontent.
Process
1. TheGovernmentOfficeshouldcontinuetoimproveproactiveandregular
communicationaroundtheactionplanandtheOGPprocess.
a. Thegovernmentshouldallocatemoretimetodevelopingtheactionplan,
anditshouldnotifystakeholdersandraiseawarenessofthepotential
timelineandprocessfordevelopingtheactionplanassoonaspossible
toenablestakeholderstoplanforparticipatingfully.
b. TheGovernmentOffice’swebsiteshouldprovideaclearerpictureofthe
processandopportunitiesforparticipation.
c. TheGovernmentOfficeshouldupdatetheinformationonitssiteabout
eachplannedactivityregularly,includingactionsthatalreadyfinished
andthosethathaveyettobecompleted.Theactionplan’sactivitieswill
onlyachievetheirfullpotentialifstakeholdersareawareoftheirnew
solutionsandresults.TheGovernmentOffice’ssiteandother
communicationactivitiesshouldincludediscussions,evaluations,and
summariesofprogresstowardsthecurrentactionplan.
2. Estonia’sOGPprocessrequiresmorehigh-levelpoliticalsupportto
promoteandtogalvanisewiderparticipationinEstonia’sOGPprocess,
especiallyattheearlystages.
a. PoliticalleadershipshouldcomefromthePrimeMinister’sOffice,the
Government,theParliament,andlocalgovernments,andadministrative
leadershipshouldcomplementitbyextendingresponsibilityfromthe
GovernmentOfficetootherpublicorganisations.
b. Possibleactivitiescouldincludeawareness-raisingandeffortstoidentify
key“champions”amongstakeholdersnotdirectlyinvolvedinthe
processsofarsuchasnewnongovernmentalorganisations,local
governments,andtheParliament.Wideningparticipationandhigh-level
supportwillhelpensurequalityandbroad-baseddecisions,anditwill
facilitatethecreationanddeliveryofambitiousandout-of-theboxideas.
71
Format
1. TheactionplanshouldmakecommitmentsthatfollowtheSMARTlogic:
Theyshouldbeclear,specific,measurable,answerable,relevant,andtime
bound.
a. Plannedactivitiesshouldincludeclearbaselines,targets,andindicators
toevaluateresults.Thisincreasestransparencyandaccountability.One
wayofachievingthisisbybasingmoreoftheplanonanalysis,
discussion,andevaluationofalternativechoices.Additionalevaluation
wouldhelpensureabetter-informedandmoreevidence-basedselection
ofprioritiesandactivitiesfortheactionplan.
b. Amendmentstotheplannedactivitiescanbemadeduringtheaction
plan’simplementationtoadjusttochangingcircumstances,but
amendmentsshouldbecommunicatedclearlyandtransparently.
c. Commitmentsshouldspecifywhethertheirplannedactivitiesarenewto
theOGPplanoriftheywereincludedalreadywithinothernational
strategies,documents,orframeworks.Thiswouldhelpstakeholders
designcommitmentsthatimprovegovernmentpracticeandtransform
thestatusquointherelevantpolicyareas.
Content
1. Thenextactionplanshouldfocusonfewerbutmoreambitiousreforms.
a. Itshouldincludenotonlylowimpactactivitiesthatwouldbe
implementedthroughotherinitiatives.Instead,theplanshouldsetat
leastsomehighlyambitiousgoals,withagreaterfocusonhowtheOGP
actionplancouldaddvaluetoEstonia’sopengovernmentprocess.
b. Commitmentscouldidentifyspecificcivilsocietypartnerstooverseeand
tosupportgovernmentactivity.However,ifstakeholdersdecideto
pursuethisstrategy,thespecifiedpartnerorganisationsmustvolunteer
fortheroleactively,andultimateresponsibilityforcompletingthe
commitmentmustremainwiththegovernment.
2. Theactionplanshouldincludecertainkeyopengovernmenttopicsthat
areprioritiesforEstonia.
a. Ethicsofpublicofficialsandcorruptionpreventionneedcontinuous
focusandcouldformaseparatepriorityareainthenextplan.Good
topicstoconsiderincludelocalgovernmentethics,protectionofwhistleblowers,andtransparentpoliticalpartyfinancing.
b. TheGovernmentOfficeshouldmakesurethattheactionplaniscoherent
withtheactivitiesaroundEstonia’sPresidencyoftheCouncilofthe
EuropeanUnion,beginningin2018.
c. Stakeholderscouldconsiderincludingmoreactivitiesconnecteddirectly
tocertainpublicpoliciesofhighimportanceforthecountry,likehealth,
education,socialaffairs,andtaxes.Activitieslinkedtocertainpublic
policiesmightachievehigherimpactandcompletionandmight
encouragewiderparticipationthanactivitiesaroundthegeneral
effectivenessofpublicadministration.
TopSMARTrecommendations
Beginningin2014,allOGPIRMreportsincludefivekeyrecommendationsaboutthe
nextOGPactionplanningcycle.GovernmentsparticipatinginOGPwillberequiredto
respondtothesekeyrecommendationsintheirannualself-assessmentreports.These
recommendationsfollowthe“SMART”logic.Thus,theIRMresearcheroffersthe
72
followingfivekeySMARTrecommendations,basedonthefindingsinthisreportandthe
moredetailedcross-cuttingrecommendationsdescribedabove.
KEY SMART RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Government Office should continue to improve proactive and regular
communication around the action plan and the OGP process. This will involve
dedicating sufficient time for a more participatory plan design process and optimizing
communication channels to promote OGP results and outputs more clearly.
2. Estonia’s OGP process requires more high-level political support to promote and
to galvanise wider participation in Estonia’s OGP process, especially at the early
stages. The Government Office should seek allies and champions across all branches and
levels of government.
3. The action plan should make commitments that follow the SMART logic: They
should be clear, specific, measurable, answerable, relevant, and time bound. All
commitments should include clear baselines, targets, indicators, and explanations of their
relationship to or overlap with other public administration initiatives.
4. The next action plan should focus on fewer but more ambitious reforms.
Commitments should set ambitious goals with a greater focus on how the OGP action
plan could add value to Estonia’s open government process.
5. The action plan should include certain key open government topics that are
priorities for Estonia. Among others that stakeholders will identify in the consultation
process, possible priorities include anti-corruption, public ethics, and key public service
sectors like health and education. The plan should be coherent and complementary with
Estonia’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
73
VIII.Methodologyandsources
Asacomplementtothegovernment’sself-assessmentreport,well-respectedgovernance
researchers,preferablyfromeachOGP-participatingcountry,writeanindependentIRM
assessmentreport.
ExpertsuseacommonOGPindependentreportquestionnaireandguidelines,1basedon
acombinationofinterviewswithlocalOGPstakeholdersaswellasdesk-basedanalysis.
ThisreportissharedwithasmallInternationalExpertPanel(appointedbytheOGP
SteeringCommittee)forpeerreviewtoensurethatthehigheststandardsofresearch
andduediligencewereapplied.
AnalysisofprogressonOGPactionplansisacombinationofinterviews,deskresearch,
andfeedbackfromnongovernmentalstakeholdermeetings.TheIRMreportbuildson
thefindingsofthegovernment’sself-assessmentreportandanyotherassessmentsof
progressbycivilsociety,theprivatesector,orinternationalorganisations.
Eachlocalresearcherconductsstakeholdermeetingstoensureanaccurateportrayalof
events.Givenbudgetaryandcalendarconstraints,theIRMcannotconsultallinterested
oraffectedparties.Consequently,theIRMstrivesformethodologicaltransparencyand,
therefore,wherepossible,makespublictheprocessofstakeholderengagementin
research(detailedlaterinthissection).Innationalcontextswhereanonymityof
informants—governmentalornongovernmental—isrequired,theIRMreservesthe
abilitytoprotecttheanonymityofinformants.Additionally,becauseofthenecessary
limitationsofthemethod,theIRMstronglyencouragescommentaryonpublicdraftsof
eachnationaldocument.
Thefollowingindividualscontributedtothereportthroughtheirparticipationinthe
focusgroupsheldbytheIRMresearcher:
FocusGroupinTallinnon2November2015,participantsincludedthefollowing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MaarjoMändmaa(ChairmanoftheBoardoftheState-OwnedEnterprise
Hoolekandeteenused;FormerSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofSocialAffairs;
ChairmanoftheCounciloftheNetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisations)
KatreEljas-Taal(AssistantDirectoroftheBalticofficeattheTechnopolis
Group;FormerHeadofForeignFinancingDepartmentoftheMinistryof
Environment)
AndreiLiimets(OGPCo-ordinatoratOpenEstoniaFoundation;theCoordinatorofOGPCivilSocietyRoundtable)
AguLaius(ExecutiveDirectoroftheNationalFoundationofCivilSociety);
TeelePehk(ExecutiveManagerattheFoundationEstonianCo-operation
Assembly;ExpertattheUrbanLab(Linnalabor);FormerConsultantatthe
GovernmentOfficeincompilingthe2014-2016OGPactionplan;Managerofthe
UrbanLab)
MarisJõgeva(ExecutiveDirectoroftheNetworkofEstonianNon-profit
Organisations;FormerExpertatOpenEstoniaFoundation)
MaiuUus(MemberoftheSupervisoryBoardoftheNationalFoundationofCivil
Society;ProgrammeManageroftheThematicDiscussionStagesoftheOpinion
Festival;VisitingResearcheratthePRAXISCentreforPolicyStudies;Experton
AdvocacyforTransparentandEffectivePublicFundingofEstonianNGOsatthe
NetworkofEstonianNon-profitOrganisations;FormerAnalystatthePRAXIS
CentreforPolicyStudies)
74
•
•
AssoPrii(MemberoftheBoardoftheTransparencyInternationalEstonia;
AttorneyatSupremiaAttorneysatLaw;FormerExecutiveManagerof
TransparencyInternationalEstonia)
LiiaHänni(SeniorExpertonE-DemocracyattheE-GovernanceAcademy;
FormerMemberofParliament,MinisterofPropertyReformandMemberofthe
ConstitutionalAssembly;MemberoftheCounciloftheNetworkofEstonian
Non-profitOrganisations)
Thefocusgrouphadthreeparts:
1. Discussionaboutthepreparationprocessoftheactionplan(timeframe,
resources,partiesinvolved,selectedideas,challenges,opportunities,
etc.);
2. Feedbackaboutcurrentoutcomesconcerningalllistedcommitmentand
activities(basedontheparticipants’knowledgeandexperience);
3. Lessonslearnedfromtheprocessandfromtheactionplanforthefuture
andforthenextactionplan.
FocusGroupinTartuon6November2015,participantsincludedthefollowing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
KristinaReinsalu(HeadofE-DemocracyDomainandProgrammeDirectorof
LocalGovernmentsattheE-GovernanceAcademy;LecturerattheUniversityof
Tartuone-governanceandpublicsectorcommunication)
TarmoTüür(Vice-ChairmanoftheExecutiveCommitteeoftheEstonianFund
forNature;LeaderoftheCommunityActivitiesDay“Let’sDoIt”)
GeaKangilaski(AnalystandProjectManageratEstonianTradeUnion
Confederation;MemberoftheCityCouncilofTartu;CitizenActivist)
TiitToots(MayorofRõugeMunicipalityGovernment)
KajarLember(DeputyMayorofTartuCityGovernment(responsiblefor
entrepreneurship,financing,cityassets);FormerParliamentMember)
LilianLukka(HeadofInformationServiceatTartuCityGovernment;
CommunicationSpecialistatTartuCentreforCreativeIndustries)
Thefocusgrouphadtwoparts:
1) Feedbackaboutcurrentoutcomesconcerninglistedcommitmentsandactivities
thatwerefamiliarforthestakeholders;
2) Lessonslearnedfromtheprocessandfromtheactionplanforthefutureandfor
thenextactionplan.
Interviews:
•
•
•
•
•
21September2015:LiisKasemets(GovernanceAdvisoratGovernmentOffice,
contactpersonforOGP;FormerExternalExperttotheIntegratedGovernance
ReviewofEstoniaandFinlandatOECD)
21September2015:HilleHinsberg(ExpertonGovernanceandCivilSociety
PolicyatthePRAXISCentreforPolicyStudies;MemberoftheInternational
ExpertPaneloftheIndependentReportingMechanism;FormerIRMresearcher
forEstonia,CommunicationOfficerattheGovernmentCommunicationUnitof
theGovernmentOffice)
3November2015:JanekRozov(HeadofInformationSocietyServices
DevelopmentDepartmentatMinistryofEconomicAffairsandCommunications)
3November2015:MargusSarapuu(StrategyDirectoroftheStrategyUnitof
theGovernmentOffice;FormerSecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofJustice)
6November2015:AndrusJõgi(AdvisorattheLocalGovernmentsFinancial
ManagementDepartmentoftheMinistryofFinance)
75
•
•
•
•
•
•
6November2015:NormanAas(SecretaryGeneraloftheMinistryofJustice;
formerProsecutorGeneral)
9November2015:MargusLehesaar(AdvisorattheDevelopmentDepartment
oftheMinistryofFinance;FormerDeputyHeadoftheRegionalAdministration
DepartmentoftheMinistryofFinance)
9November2015:JuhaniLemmik(SeniorAdviseronPolicy-Making,Strategy
andReformatOECDSIGMA;MemberoftheCommitteeonBudgetandFinance
ofInternationalCriminalCourt;FormerGovernanceAdvisoroftheStrategyUnit
oftheGovernmentOffice,DirectorofAuditatNationalAuditOfficeofEstonia,
DeputyHeadoftheStateBudgetDepartmentoftheMinistryofFinance)
11November2015:VeikoLember(DirectorofandSeniorResearchFellowat
theRagnarNurkseSchoolofInnovationandGovernanceoftheTallinn
UniversityofTechnology;MemberoftheEditorialTeamfortheJournal
AdministrativeCulture)
11November2015:TanelTammet(ProfessoroftheChairofNetworkSoftware
oftheDepartmentofComputerScienceoftheTallinnUniversityofTechnology)
13November2015:KasparKorjus(E-ResidencyProgrammeDirectoratthe
EnterpriseEstonia;FormerE-ResidencyProjectManagerattheEstonian
DevelopmentFund,CloudBusinessManageratTeliaSonera)
AbouttheIndependentReportingMechanism
TheIRMisakeymeansbywhichgovernment,civilsociety,andtheprivatesectorcan
trackgovernmentdevelopmentandimplementationofOGPactionplansonabi-annual
basis.Thedesignofresearchandqualitycontrolofsuchreportsiscarriedoutbythe
InternationalExperts’Panel,comprisedofexpertsintransparency,participation,
accountability,andsocialscienceresearchmethods.
ThecurrentmembershipoftheInternationalExperts’Panelis:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AnuradhaJoshi
DebbieBudlender
ErnestoVelasco-Sánchez
GerardoMunck
HazelFeigenblatt
HilleHinsberg
JonathanFox
LilianeCorrêadeOliveiraKlaus
RosemaryMcGee
YaminiAiyar
AsmallstaffbasedinWashington,D.C.shepherdsreportsthroughtheIRMprocessin
closeco-ordinationwiththeresearcher.Questionsandcommentsaboutthisreportcan
[email protected].
1FullresearchguidancecanbefoundintheIRMProceduresManual,availableat:
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/about/about-irm.
76
IX.Eligibilityrequirements
InSeptember2012,theOGPbeganstronglyencouragingparticipatinggovernmentsto
adoptambitiouscommitmentsinrelationtotheirperformanceintheOGPeligibility
criteria.
TheOGPSupportUnitcollateseligibilitycriteriaonanannualbasis.Estonia’sscoresare
presentedbelow.1Whenappropriate,theIRMreportswilldiscussthecontext
surroundingprogressorregressonspecificcriteriainthesectiononcountrycontext.
2011
Current
Change
ND
ND
N/A
Access to information3
4
4
No
change
Asset declaration4
3
4
é
Citizen engagement
(Raw score)
4
(8.82) 5
4
(8.82) 6
No
change
Total/Possible
(Per cent)
11/12
(92%)
12/12
(100%)
é
Budget transparency2
Explanation
4 = Executive’s Budget Proposal and Audit
Report published
2 = One of two published
0 = Neither published
4 = Access to information (ATI) Law
3 = Constitutional ATI provision
1 = Draft ATI law
0 = No ATI law
4 = Asset disclosure law, data public
2 = Asset disclosure law, no public data
0 = No law
1>0
2 > 2.5
3>5
4 > 7.5
75% of possible points to be eligible
1“EligibilityCriteria,”OpenGovernmentPartnership,http://bit.ly/1929F1l
2Formoreinformation,seeTable1intheOpenBudgetSurvey(http://bit.ly/1Q6kx11).Forup-to-date
assessments,seetheOBSTracker(http://www.obstracker.org/).
3ThetwodatabasesusedareConstitutionalProvisions(http://bit.ly/1IlnjKB)andLawsandDraftLaws
(http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws).
4SimeonDjankov,RafaelLaPorta,FlorencioLopez-de-Silanes,andAndreiShleifer,“Disclosureby
Politicians,”(TuckSchoolofBusinessWorkingPaper2009-60,2009),http://bit.ly/19nDEfK;Organisation
forEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),“TypesofInformationDecisionMakersAreRequired
toFormallyDisclose,andLevelOfTransparency,”inGovernmentataGlance2009,(OECD,2009),
http://bit.ly/13vGtqS;RichardMessick,“IncomeandAssetDisclosurebyWorldBankClientCountries”
(Washington,DC:WorldBank,2009),http://bit.ly/1cIokyf;Formorerecentinformation,see
http://publicofficialsfinancialdisclosure.worldbank.org.In2014,theOGPSteeringCommitteeapproveda
changeintheassetdisclosuremeasurement.Theexistenceofalawanddefactopublicaccesstothe
disclosedinformationreplacedtheoldmeasuresofdisclosurebypoliticiansanddisclosureofhigh-level
officials.Foradditionalinformation,seetheguidancenoteon2014OGPEligibilityRequirementsat
http://bit.ly/1EjLJ4Y.
5EconomistIntelligenceUnit,“DemocracyIndex2010:DemocracyinRetreat”(London:Economist,2010),
http://bit.ly/eLC1rE
6EconomistIntelligenceUnit,“DemocracyIndex2014:DemocracyanditsDiscontents”(London:
Economist,2014),http://bit.ly/18kEzCt
77

Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) Progress Report 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

Dear Subdirectora Victoria Figueroa Domínguez and Subsecretaria

Eleta Exline, Thelma Thompson, and Michael Routhier, University of

Margus Friedenthal - International Seed Testing Association

Indonesia - Open Government Partnership

Youngsters from Strzyzow (Poland) went to Polva (Estonia)

SmartScope ZIP® 250

South Korea IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

HRD Communique Oct-Dec 2015 - Institute of Rural Management

lithuania developing nuclear plant partnership