Romania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018
- Action Plan: Romania Action Plan 2016-2018
- Dates Under Review: 2016-2017
- Report Publication Year: 2018
- Researcher: Simona Adam
| Romania’s third action plan saw an inclusive co-creation process and addressed priority areas such as anti-corruption, open data, and service delivery. However, commitment activities lacked specificity and their overall completion remains limited. The next action plan would benefit from focusing on a smaller number of well-defined commitments that clearly identify expected outcomes. |
HIGHLIGHTS
| Commitment | Overview | Well-Designed?* |
| 4. Improve citizenship application process | The commitment would address a government service delivery gap through modernizing the citizenship application process to reduce wait times and open new data about application statistics. | Yes |
| 9. Subnational open government | This is the first government commitment to expand open government practices at the local level and could provide useful case studies and trial grounds for driving forward local open government. | No |
| 10. Set up Transparency Register (RUTI) | This commitment established a new official system for reporting meetings between private sector advocates and government officials; such information was not previously available to the public. | No |
| 17. Open contracting | Adopting the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS) is a continuation from the previous action plan and would increase contracting transparency, allowing a deeper analysis of procurement data by a wide range of users. | Yes |
*Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact
PROCESS
| Romania had a collaborative consultation process that engaged a diverse array of civil society stakeholders. The OGP Club forum is widely valued by CSOs. Moving forward, the role of the new OGP Steering Committee should be clarified, and the Club meetings continued at more regular intervals. |
Who was involved?
| Civil society | Beyond “governance” civil society | |||
| Mostly “governance” civil society | ✔ | |||
| No/little civil society involvement | ||||
| Narrow/little governmental consultations | Primarily agencies that serve other agencies | Significant involvement of line ministries and agencies | ||
| Government | ||||
Thirteen governmental bodies are responsible for the implementation of the 2016–2018 action plan, while another 25 are involved as partners. Additionally, one subnational body (Timisoara Municipality) is involved even though it is not a formal partner listed in the national action plan. All line ministries were asked to provide input on development of the action plan. Involvement from civil society was primarily from the technology and open data sectors as they relate to governance, but also included transparency and access to information CSOs.
Level of input by stakeholders
| Level of Input | During Development |
| Collaborate: There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda | ✔ |
| Involve: The public could give feedback on how commitments were considered | |
| Consult: The public could give input | |
| Inform: The government provided the public with information on the action plan. | |
| No Consultation |
OGP co-creation requirements
| Timeline Process and Availability
Timeline and process available online prior to consultation |
✔ |
| Advance notice
Advance notice of consultation |
✔ |
| Awareness Raising
Government carried out awareness-raising activities |
✔ |
| Multiple Channels
Online and in-person consultations were carried out |
✔ |
| Documentation and Feedback
A summary of comments by government was provided |
✔ |
| Regular Multi-stakeholder Forum
Did a forum exist and did it meet regularly? |
✔ |
| Government Self-Assessment Report
Was a self-assessment report published? |
✔ |
| Total | 7 of 7 |
| Acting contrary to OGP process
A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs: · The National Action Plan was developed with neither online or offline engagements with citizens and civil society · The government fails to engage with the IRM researchers in charge of the country’s Year 1 and Year 2 reports · The IRM report establishes that there was no progress made on implementing any of the commitments in the country’s action plan |
No |
COMMITMENT PERFORMANCE
| Overall implementation for Romania’s 18 commitments remains limited. Commitments could be better defined to clearly specify the problem they will address, the measurable activities that will be carried out, and the intended results. |
Current Action Plan Implementation
| 2016–2018 Action Plan | |
| Completed Commitments (Year 1) | 2 of 18 (11%) |
| OGP Average Completion Rate (Year 1) | 18% |
Previous Action Plan Implementation
| 2014–2016 Action Plan | |
| Completed Commitments (Year 1) | 1 of 11 (9%) |
| Completed Commitments (Year 2) | 2 of 11 (18%) |
| 2012–2013 Action Plan | |
| Completed Commitments (Year 1) | 1 of 18 (6%) |
| Completed Commitments (Year 2) | N/A |
Potential Impact
| 2016–2018 Action Plan | |
| Transformative Commitments | 2 of 18 (11%) |
| OGP Average for Transformative Commitments | 16% |
| 2014–2016 Transformative Commitments | 1 of 11 (9%) |
| 2012–2013 Transformative Commitments | 7 of 18 (39%) |
Starred commitments
| 2016–2018 Action Plan | |
| Starred Commitments (Year1) | 1 of 18 (6%) |
| Highest Number of Starred Commitments (All OGP Action Plans) | 5 |
| 2014–2016 Starred Commitments | 1 of 11 (9%) |
| 2012–2013 Starred Commitments | 0 of 18 (0%) |
IRM KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
| 1. Regularize OGP Club meetings and clarify the role of the new Steering Committee |
| 2. Institutionalize OGP across government ministries and establish a budget line to improve implementation |
| 3. Increase transparency of public spending |
| 4. Improve FOI implementation, including at the Local Level |
| 5. Expand and protect civic space |
English
French
Spanish
Leave a Reply