Georgia has recently started working on its third Open Government Action Plan, while it has yet to complete the main commitments of the second one. The study presents the reasons why second Action Plan commitments were not met, possible consequences and recommendations to be considered in the future.

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is an international initiative that was launched in 2011 and currently includes 69 states. OGP member states develop annual action plans and voluntarily take on commitments to promote open government principles of transparency, accountability, citizen participation, and technology and innovation. Georgia joined the OGP in 2011. The action plan development process is coordinated by the Open Government Georgia Forum (Forum), which unites representatives of government, international and non-governmental organizations, and is co-chaired by the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI).

The goal of this study is not to offer an alternative evaluation of the OGP Georgia Action Plan for 2014-2015. It rather aims to discuss the reasons for the failure to meet its commitments and develop effective recommendations that can be of use to the Forum moving forward. For this purpose, IDFI decided to present a simplified version of the evaluation conducted by the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM). IDFI, as the Forum co-chairman, together with other members shares the responsibility on the completed and unfulfilled commitments. Our goal is to assist the Forum to better plan future action plans.

The OGP Georgia Action Plan for 2014-2015 included 29 commitments and 16 state agencies responsible for their implementation. The commitments included in the second action plan were developed on the basis of cooperation between the government and non-governmental organizations and public consultations held across the country (19 public meetings with 700 total participants were held in 15 cities).

Of the 29 total commitments 9 have not been completed. This result is based on the comparison of the action plan indicators with the actual results at the end of 2015.

Reasons for Failure to Meet the Commitments

Currently, Georgia is working on its third OGP action plan. Consultations on new commitments are underway. IDFI believes that identifying and discussing the reasons for failure to meet some of the commitments of the previous action plan will help better implement the next one.

Insufficient Resources

In some cases, responsible agencies were unable to properly evaluate and estimate their resources and capabilities.

For example, the Civil Service Bureau was responsible for setting up a monitoring system of asset declarations filed by public officials. This commitment was aimed at preventing corruption, and ensuring the integrity and transparency of the public service. The responsible agency prepared the legal basis, but was unable to launch the system.

The Civil Service Bureau failed to fulfill the commitment due to technical reasons, despite the fact that it had ample opportunity to properly evaluate and estimate the resources that would be required.

A similar problem prevented the LEPL National Archives of Georgia and LEPL Public Service Development Agency from launching a digital archive system and introducing e-government in local governments, respectively.

Reason Unknown

Unfortunately, the 9 unfulfilled commitments include 3 of main commitments of the second OGP action plan. These are: 1. E-petitions platform (ICHANGE.GE); 2. Interactive statistics and crime mapping (both commitments were included in the action plan based on IDFI's recommendation); and 3. Reform of the legislation on Freedom of Information. All three commitments are reformative and directly related to OGP’s main principles.

Even though all of the technical and practical preparations were made for the launch of the e-petitions platform and the freedom of information reform, their implementation was delayed indefinitely for unknown reasons. The same happened in relation to interactive statistics and crime mapping. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ progress report presented to the OGP Georgia Forum, the ministry was actively working on implementing the commitment and had already taken practical steps, however, in the end, the process was stopped for no apparent reason.

Conclusion

Georgia is recognized as an exemplary OGP member state. The country has served as a member of the OGP Steering Committee since 2014, which places its actions under an international spotlight.

In order for Georgia to remain on the front line of reforms, maintain its distinctive position in the Open Government Partnership and have a chance to become a co-chairman or chairman of this international initiative, the government and individual state agencies must be more responsible, undertake ambitious commitments and, most importantly, fulfill them. Taking on significant commitments and then refusing or failing to complete them will damage Georgia’s international prestige and reputation.

The Georgian people also expect the government to fulfill its OGP commitments. The Georgian model of cooperation between the government and civil society within the OGP framework is recognized internationally. The government’s failure to implement key civil society recommendations will have a negative impact on this cooperation and will give rise to distrust and nihilism towards the OGP process among the citizens and the civil society.

Recommendations

IDFI calls on the Georgian government to consider the following recommendations when planning and implementing future OGP action plans:

1. The Open Government Partnership (OGP) must be a national priority for Georgia. Commitments included in new action plans must be accompanied with a clear political will and intent of fulfilling them.

2. The commitments included in future OGP action plans must be not only realistic but also ambitious. Their results must be large-scale, tangible and transformational.

3. The commitments that are directly related to OGP principles must be prioritized during implementation. This recommendation was also made by the IRM.

4. Public consultations demonstrated the need for more commitments that have a direct impact on the everyday lives of citizens. The same was recommended by the IRM.

5. The indicators used to evaluate the successful completion of commitments must be clear and realistic.

6. Georgia must undertake more commitments aimed at introducing OGP principles at the local government level. The commitments undertaken by OGP member states in this regard are most commonly related to electronic platforms, participatory budgeting and proactive disclosure of public information in easy-to-use formats.

7. The Open Government Georgia Forum must be expanded to include more state agencies that will be able to take on and implement effective and ambitious commitments.