Perú Design Report 2017-2019
- Action Plan: Peru Action Plan 2017-2019
- Dates Under Review: 2017-2019
- Report Publication Year: 2020
The majority of the commitments in Peru’s third action plan are verifiable and of moderate potential impact. However, its co-creation process did not include a feedback mechanism for the public justifying the acceptance or rejection of civil society contributions. In the future, it is recommended to create a platform that sheds light on processes related to information, consultation, feedback and / or decision-making during the processes of formulating and implementing plans of action.
|Table 1. At a glance
Participating since: 2011
Action plan development
Action plan design
Action plan implementation
*DIOG: Did it Open Government?
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a global partnership that brings together government reformers and civil society leaders to create action plans that make governments more inclusive, responsive, and accountable. The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) monitors all action plans to ensure governments follow through on commitments. Perú joined OGP in 2011 and has since implemented two action plans. This report assesses the design of Perú’s third action plan.
General overview of the action plan
The design of the action plan of Peru 2017-2019 makes an approach to the elaboration of commitments according to the priorities of seven sectors of the Peruvian State. The creation of the action plan had seven leading ministries: environment, energy and mines, education, transportation, health, sanitation and interior. As part of a commitment from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, in which the country’s participation in OGP is coordinated, it was sought to generate commitments aligned with the Government’s policy priorities, which in turn can be fulfilled in the period of two years of the plan.
This sectoral approach has shown successes and limitations. Among the successes, it highlights that all commitments are specific enough to be verifiable, and a majority have moderate potential impact. Being closely associated with government management priorities, the evaluation of both indicators is positive. However, among the limitations, it is worth noting that some commitments have no relevance to the OGP values and others handle notions of access to information and citizen participation that do not point to a higher level of ambition with respect to previous action plans. Likewise, no commitment appealed to the value of accountability. These shortcomings suggest that the time and resources invested in the period of induction of OGP values, as part of the preparation of the 2017-2019 plan, were not adequate.
The Secretariat of Public Management of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (SGP-PCM for its acronym in Spanish) designed two types of participation mechanisms for civil society. The first one, through three types of sequential tables (the so-called “thematic tables”, the “regional workshops” or “decentralized workshops” and the “national tables”, in that temporal order). Civil society organizations were convened through offices, and in the case of regional workshops and national tables, the call was added through the internet and social networks. The second mechanism was a virtual forum, in which the public could comment on the proposals for commitments that were created at the thematic tables.
All civil society respondents consider that the process was carried out in a hurried way and with greater prominence of the state offices. Likewise, for a majority of civil society respondents, the final selection of commitments did not correspond to the deliberations that took place at the thematic tables, spaces where they had a greater participation. Since 2014, Peru does not have a multi-stakeholder forum in practice. The Government has sought to remedy this situation with the creation of multi-stakeholder forums in each of the sectors that have commitments to OGP.
Given the evidence provided by the Government, the IRM researcher considers that the level of collaboration with civil society reached the level of consultations. The Government has not provided evidence that the participants have received justified answers on how decisions were made to include (or not) their contributions. Likewise, the national tables had a majority of representatives of the Peruvian State sectors. The veto power of state agencies was particularly strong at this stage as these spaces were called to reduce the number of commitments. Similarly, before its official publication, the commitments went through an additional internal validation process between the GSP-PCM and each of the ministries; process that the PCM has not documented.
Table 2. Noteworthy commitments
|Descripción del compromiso||Siguientes pasos||Estatus al final del ciclo de implementación.|
|1. Multistake Forums in priority sectors and open government commitments.
Create pilot meeting spaces between civil society and the government and each of the sectors linked to the current action plan.
|Guarantee an early operation of these forums for the following action plan of Peru.||Nota: esto se evaluará al final del ciclo del plan de acción.|
|2. Access to environmental information and improvement of environmental information
Standardize the way information is collected and presented in the environmental sector.
|Convene SERFOR to integrate core work components and forest transparency issues and a commitment to the AGA.||Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.|
|3. Strengthening the spaces that meet in the public, private and civil society sectors for the alignment of regional and local environmental policies
Strengthening of the Regional Environmental Commissions (CARs) and Municipal Environmental Commissions (CAMs) to promote dialogue and agreements between the public, private sectors, and civil society related to environmental policies.
|Guarantee the opening of the CAMs and the CARs to all civil society organizations, and establish the accountability mechanisms associated with those platforms in future action plans.||Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.|
|4. Promote access to information on public resources linked to extractive activities
Promote access to information on the extractive sector through the national government and regional and local governments.
|Prioritize this commitment, which has been touched on since the first action plan.||Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle|
|9. Urban Transportation of Lima and Callao with participatory and collaborative spaces for the administration of the Urban Transport Authority – ATU.
Promote spaces for participation which create opportunities for citizens to influence decision-making related to transportation issues and urban mobility in Lima and Callao.
|Strengthen the mandate of the Advisory Committee and the Regulations of the ATU law.||Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle|
The IRM recommendations aim to inform the development of the next action plan and guide the implementation of the current action plan.
Table 3. Five key IRM recommendations
|a) Generate a platform that ensures the traceability of information related to the processes of information, consultation, feedback and / or co-decision with civil society|
|b) Rethink the sectoral approach in the elaboration of new commitments: aim at a better understanding of the OGP values and a greater ambition regarding the commitments with activities that are already being worked on.|
|c) Launch the sector multisectoral forum pilots for the design of the new action plan at an earlier stage and have them be co-chaired by the State and civil society.|
|d) Explore new issues to integrate with open government: legal reforms, justice and public contracts, in the context of the bicentenary of the independence of Peru.|
|e) Promote updating legislation on citizen participation.|