Increasing transparency of the Ministry of Culture (RO0090)

1. What problem does the commitment aim to address?

Legislation in the field of cultural heritage is extensive and not uniformly applied at national level, with different approaches and interpretations at the level of the decentralized services of the Ministry of Culture. The group targeted by this commitment is represented by all the actors (natural or legal persons) benefiting from the activity of the decentralized services of the Ministry of Culture, which is affected by the bureaucracy in the field, lack of transparency in procedures and lack of predictability of issuing the necessary opinions, including by the lack of availability of the necessary information (webpages that are outdated or with incomplete information). Also, even if from the perspective of open governance and collaboration with private actors interested and/or directly affected by the activity of the directorates, there are elements of good practice in the field, but they are not implemented/replicated at the level of all decentralized services. The main problems created by the existing bureaucracy can be improved/prevented by introducing effective standardization of the specialized activity of decentralized services.

2. What are the causes of the problem?

The problem: Uneven application of cultural heritage legislation at national level by the decentralized services of the Ministry of Culture.
2. Causes:
• Cases related to legislation: o Complexity of legislation in the field of cultural heritage. o The existence of ambiguous or interpretable wording in laws and norms. o Lack of clear and detailed regulations for certain specific aspects. o Dispersion of regulations in various normative acts.
• Causes related to the capacity and functioning of decentralized services: o Lack of standardized and detailed operational procedures at national level. o Different interpretations of the legislation by the staff of the different county directorates. o Different levels of expertise and specialization of heritage staff. o Insufficient human and financial resources in some county directorates. o Lack of effective coordination and communication mechanisms between county directorates and the Ministry of Culture. o Lack of continuous training and up-to-date knowledge of staff.
• Causes related to access to information and transparency: o Websites of county directorates not up-to-date or with incomplete information. o Lack of practical guides or official interpretations of legislation accessible to the public. o Difficulty in obtaining clear and precise information on the necessary procedures and documents. o Lack of predictability in the process of issuing opinions.

3. Effects:
• Effects on stakeholders (natural and legal persons): o Excessive bureaucracy and long waiting times for issuing opinions. o Additional costs due to uncertainty and the need to clarify procedures. o Difficulties in planning and implementing projects related to cultural heritage. o Different treatment depending on the county where the activity takes place. o Frustration and discouragement among those who want to invest or intervene in cultural heritage. o Lack of predictability affecting investment decisions.
• Effects on the protection of cultural heritage: o Risk of inconsistent or inappropriate decisions on heritage protection and conservation. o Difficulties in monitoring and controlling the application of legislation at national level. o Possibility that important aspects of heritage are not adequately protected in certain areas. o Negative public perception of how cultural heritage is managed.
• Effects on the Ministry of Culture: o Difficulties in the unitary implementation of national cultural policies. o Negative public image. o Difficulties in providing an effective legal and administrative framework for heritage protection.

Commitment Description

1. What has been done so far to solve the problem?

Several preliminary activities took place at the level of decentralized services, such as: 1. qualitative analysis of incidental legislation; 2. analysis of the implementation of the internal management control system in the last 3 years; 3. analysis of the implementation of the NAS in the last 3 years; 4. analysis of the websites of decentralized services; 5. identification of risks at the level of decentralized services.

Note: given that these analyses were carried out in 2022-2023, they need to be updated. A series of 4 online information sessions were organised with the decentralized services aimed at: Presentation of the commitment made in the 2022-2024 NAP of the OGP and the results sought; presentation of the analysis of the legislative framework in force; presentation of the risk analysis identified at the level of decentralized services; the list of proposals for procedures and the identification of elements of good practice in the field.

As part of the promotion and public dissemination component of the OGP Commitment, a public meeting was held on 11 May 2023 to present the good practices identified at the level of the County Directorates for Culture. The meeting was organized in a videoconference system and aimed to promote the activities carried out by the Directorates for Culture at local level, as well as to raise awareness of their importance in the public administrative system. The event was addressed to persons in management and executive positions within the public administration, as well as to non-governmental organizations working in the field of cultural heritage protection. Specialists from DJCs had the opportunity to share best practices and solutions found to protect and promote heritage, both from the perspective of incidental legislation (and the need to supplement and correct it) and to obtain funding sources. Particular interest was aroused by the creation of a GIS record of the archaeological heritage. A working group has been set up at the level of the Ministry of Culture to standardize the specialized procedures at the level of the Ministry's decentralized services, and a number of 6 projects have been carried out so far, but have not been validated by the entire working group.

2. What solution are you proposing?

Standardization of procedures:
• Development and implementation of Standardised Operational Procedures (SOPs): Create detailed SOPs for all key processes mandatory for all county directorates. These will include clear deadlines, precise workflows and defined responsibilities. • Creation of standardised forms and documentation at national level: Use clear and unique forms for all types of requests, available online in editable format.

Increasing transparency and access to information:
• Standardization of specialist information on websites. • Constant updating of websites.

Identification, documentation and dissemination of good practices:
• Webinars and online workshops : Interactive sessions dedicated to presenting and discussing good practices on specific topics. • Thematic Working Groups: Forming expert groups from different directions to collaborate on specific topics, to develop common guides or tools. • Periodic newsletter: An electronic newsletter with news, examples of good practices and useful resources.

3. What results do we want to achieve by implementing this commitment?

Results:
• Standardised documents: o A complete set of detailed and approved Standardised Operational Procedures (SOPs) for all key decentralized service processes (e.g.: issuing opinions, authorisations, checks, etc.). o Standardized forms and documentation at national level for all types of requests, easily accessible online. o Standardisation of specialist information published on the websites of all county directorates.

• Dissemination tools: o A dedicated section on the website of the Ministry of Culture to host the best practice database. o A regular electronic newsletter distributed to the staff of all county directorates and accessible to citizens. o Practical guides and official interpretations of legislation, accessible to the public.

• Experience exchange events: o Organise regular webinars and on-line workshops to present and discuss good practices. o Establish active and productive thematic working groups.

• A well-functioning network: o An active and collaborative community of practice between the staff of the different county directorates. o An active and collaborative community of practice between the staff of the various county directorates and private stakeholders or those directly affected by the work of the directorates.

The above results will contribute to: o uniform application of cultural heritage legislation by the staff of all county directorates. o awareness of the existence and benefits of good practices identified at national level. o Developing skills of collaboration and communication between staff of different directorates. o developing the public communication and promotion skills of the directorate staff and, thus, inaugurating a transparent way of working and, implicitly, co-creating with the citizen, to the OGP standards of transparency and public accountability. o the development of administrative capacity at the level of decentralized services, thanks to clear and standardised procedures. o developing organisational cultures more open to collaboration and exchange of experience between county directorates.

In essence, through this commitment, we want to create a system in which the decentralized services of the Ministry of Culture operate in a coherent, transparent and efficient way, based on clear procedures and the constant exchange of best practices, which will lead to better protection of cultural heritage and easier and predictable interaction for all those interested.

Commitment Analysis
1. How will the commitment promote transparency?

1. Standardisation of specialised information on websites: • The commitment provides for the standardisation of specialist information on the websites of all county directorates. This means that citizens will be able to find essential information more easily and in a consistent format, such as: relevant legislation (direct links to applicable regulatory acts); Standardised operational procedures (clear descriptions of the steps required for various requests); electronic standardised forms; • A standardised structure and constant updating will make information easier to find and understand, even for citizens who are not familiar with the field of cultural heritage.
2. Standardisation of procedures: • By creating and publishing SOPs, the commitment will make transparent the internal stages of the processing of requests, the evaluation criteria and the response deadlines. Citizens will have a clear picture of how decentralized services work and what they can expect. • Reduction of arbitrariness: Standardised procedures will reduce the possibility of subjective interpretations and different application of rules, contributing to a fairer and more transparent process for all applicants.
3. Dissemination of Good Practices: • Identifying and disseminating good practices will give citizens a clearer understanding of how laws should be applied. • Webinars and online workshops: These events can be open to the general public, offering opportunities to learn directly from specialists about procedures, legislation and best practices.
4. Periodic Information Bulletin: • The regular newsletter will include legislative news, information on new or amended procedures, examples of good practice relevant to the public.

2. How will the commitment help foster accountability?

Standardisation of procedures: • By clearly defining the steps, deadlines and responsibilities for each key process (issuing opinions, authorisations, controls, etc.), the commitment makes it easier to track who is responsible for what and within what timeframe. If deadlines are not respected or procedures are not followed correctly, it becomes easier to identify where the problem has arisen and who is responsible. • Standardising the criteria on the basis of which decisions are taken (e.g. for issuing an opinion) makes the process more objective and less susceptible to arbitrary interpretation. Citizens can better understand why an application has been approved or rejected, and institutions are more responsible for the consistent application of these criteria.

3. How will the commitment improve citizen participation in defining, implementing, and monitoring solutions?

Public consultations during the drafting phase of the procedures: Before finalising the standardised procedures, the Ministry of Culture will hold public consultations (according to the legislation in force) to collect feedback from citizens, non- governmental organisations active in the field of heritage and other stakeholders. Involvement of NGOs: Collaborate with non-governmental organisations working in the field of cultural heritage protection to disseminate information about engagement, collect feedback from their members and participate in information and promotion events.

Commitment Planning

Milestones | Expected Outputs | Expected Completion Date

1. Standardisation of procedures: Step 1: Complete the analysis of the legal framework and procedures in place at the level of decentralized services | This includes updating the above mentioned preliminary analyses: 1. qualitative analysis of incidental legislation; analysis of the implemenation of the internal management control system in the last 3 years; analysis of the implementation of the internal management control system in the last 3 years; 3. analysis of the implementation of the NAS in the last 3 years; 4. analysis of the websites decentralized services; 5. identification of risks at the level of decentralized services; launching an online questionnaire to collect information from citizens, professionals and civil society on current hotspots in interactions with services and suggestions for improvement and standardisation. | Sep - Oct 2025

Step 2: Development of draft standardised operational procedures for the first 5 key processes. | Development of projects for 5 procedures Conducting consultations with experts and staff from various county directorates Organisation of dedicated webinar/webinars/sta keholder consultation | October- November 2025

Step 3: Organizing public consultations on POS projects. | Publication of draft procedures in public transparency November 2025 Step 4: Approval of the first 5 standardised procedures. Publication of proceedings in the Official Gazette | December 2025

Step 5: Evaluation of pilot implementation and adjustment of POS. | Preliminary analysis of the effects of the implementation of the 5 procedures at the level of decentralized services Organisation of a feedback session(s) | January - March 2026

Step 6: Repeat steps 1-5 for other key processes. | - April 2026 – June 2027

2. Increased transparency Step 1: Establish standards for specialist information to be published on the websites of county directorates. | Defining the minimum mandatory structure, format and content. Organizing a working session dedicated to stakeholders | January 2026

Step 2: Conduct an analysis of the existing websites of the county directorates in order to identify gaps in relation to the established standards. | Analysis performed. Consultation with county directorates. | March 2026

Step 3: Complete the updating and standardization of the websites. | 42 webpages with standardised specialised content | September 2026

Step 4: Monitoring and updating information on websites. | 42 websites with up- to-date content | June 2027

3. Identification, documentation and dissemination of good practices Step 1a: Calling on decentralized services to identify and propose best practices in various areas of activity. Step 1b: Launch a call for NGOs to identify good practices in the field of cultural heritage. | Defining criteria for the selection of good practices. Collection of best practices from directorates Collecting good practices from NGOs | September - October 2025

Step 2: Organise the first set of online webinars dedicated to presenting and discussing identified good practices. | Organisation of 5 best practice webinars | November 2025 – June 2027

Step 3: Publication of the regular newsletter dedicated to good practices and news from the network. | Publication of 5 newsletters | December 2025 – June 2027

Step 4: Implementing a peer-to-peer learning program between decentralized services | Increase specific expertise, improve coherence in the application of cultural heritage legislation and develop an active support network between decentralized service staff. | January 2026 - June 2027

Step 5: Collection and continuous updating of good practices. | Development of collection mechanism | January 2026 - June 2027