Skip Navigation
Slovak Republic

Develop the Final Evaluation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019. (SK0124)

Overview

At-a-Glance

Action Plan: Slovak Republic National Action Plan 2017-2019

Action Plan Cycle: 2017

Status: Inactive

Institutions

Lead Institution: Plenipotentiary of the Government for the Development of Civil Society in co-operation with the Ministers, Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for Investment and Informatization, Head of the Office of the Government of the SR and heads of other central government bodies.

Support Institution(s): NA

Policy Areas

E-Government

IRM Review

IRM Report: Slovakia Implementation Report 2017-2019, Slovak Republic Design Report 2017–2019

Starred: No

Early Results: Marginal

Design i

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to OGP Values: Access to Information

Potential Impact:

Implementation i

Completion:

Description

One of the responsibilities of each country that has joined the OGP is to evaluate the successfulness of the implementation of the OGP National Action Plans.
Commitment No. 67: Develop the final evaluation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019.

IRM Midterm Status Summary

THEME - OGP coordination and next steps
Comm 65, 66, 67, 68

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan of the Slovak Republic 2017 – 2019”, http://bit.ly/2QYIlHV ]:

Commitment 65: “Identify the person responsible for implementing the tasks of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019 in the organization.”

Commitment 66: “Coordinate the Working Group on the implementation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019.”

Commitment 67: “Develop the final evaluation of the OGP National Action Plan 2017-2019.”

Commitment 68: “Prepare and submit for the Government of the Slovak Republic the OGP National Action Plan for the following period.”

Start Date: Not specified                

End Date: 31 October 2019

 

Context and Objectives

One of the main recommendations of the previous IRM report[Note : Mária Žuffová, Open Government Partnership, “Slovakia Special Accountability Report 2014 - 2015”, http://bit.ly/2EzH4Ws] was to guarantee and strengthen intra- and inter-agency cooperation, as it is a necessary condition for successful implementation of some commitments, in particular commitments on open data and participatory policy-making which are coordinated by different public agencies jointly. Knowledge exchange is crucial for advancing open government agenda. For instance, as several interviewees emphasized[Note : Interview with Karolína Miková (PDCS), 9 November 2018. Interview with Marcel Zajac (Center for Philanthropy), 5 November 2018. Interview with Veronika Prachárová (Slovak Governance Institute), 16 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.   ], sharing best practice examples from more successful public agencies might encourage those lagging and provide them with valuable suggestions on how to improve.

Although a public agency responsible for a particular commitment was always identified in the previous action plans, it often was not clear who the concrete public servant coordinating the agenda at that public agency is. The absence of clear responsibility could have led to the situation when enquiries were not responded. Commitments 65 and 66 address this problem and help to make the successful implementation of action plans more likely. Identifying the OGP person at each ministry also strengthen the sense of responsibility and ownership. It also enables greater accountability within the government but also towards civil society. Interviewed public servants also welcomed the establishment of the OGP working group as a platform for collaboration and knowledge exchange[Note : Interview with a ministry representative 2 who wished to remain anonymous, 6 November 2018. Interview with a representative of central government agency who wished to remain anonymous, 5 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.   ] although this commitment is rather inward-facing and represents an internal change.

At the end of each implementation cycle, governments are expected to publish a self-assessment report evaluating the implementation of the action plan. The Office of the Plenipotentiary published the government’s first self-assessment report in 2013[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Mid-term self-assessment report”, http://bit.ly/2Qh3CQh (in Slovak).], and the second in 2016[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Government self-assessment report”, https://bit.ly/2agz0Gy (in Slovak).]. In August 2018 the Mid-term self-assessment report evaluating the implementation progress of commitments in the current action plan was published[Note : The Office of the Plenipotentiary, “Mid-term government self-assessment report”, http://bit.ly/2r2JwuQ (in Slovak). ]. The final self-assessment report, which will evaluate the completion of the action plan is due in June 2019. When this assessment is complete; governments are expected to draft a new action plan. The impact of commitment 68 will be contingent upon the ambition of the new action plan and the nature of the process of creating it.

Next steps

The IRM researcher recommends maintaining the OGP working group. The interviewed public servants stated that they benefited from its existence and also welcomed that the Office of the Plenipotentiary uses a variety of channels for communication. One interviewee appreciated, in particular, regular distribution of a newsletter updating public servants in charge of OGP commitments about the progress and news more broadly[Note : Interview with a representative of central government agency who wished to remain anonymous, 5 November 2018. See Section ‘VI. Methodology and sources for details.  

].   

As mentioned in Section III: Leadership and Multi-stakeholder Process, the Office of the Plenipotentiary has developed this action plan in an open, transparent and participatory manner. Not only was the information about all important steps publicly available and widely circulated, and the opportunities for relevant experts and the public to participate were numerous, but they could co-create the content of the action plan. The IRM researcher recommends maintaining these standards in the development of the upcoming action plan.   

 

Editorial note: If a country “meets” the six standards in bold, the IRM will recognize the country’s process as a Starred Process.

IRM End of Term Status Summary

For details on each commitment, see Slovakia Implementation Report 2017-2019.

Commitments

Open Government Partnership