1. Assessment and recommendations
This chapter provides an integrated overview of the assessment and the recommendations included in the OECD Open Government Review of Romania. It presents key information further developed in the following chapters and highlights the main recommendations for Romania to consider in the short, medium, and long term to strengthen policies and practices in terms of transparency, accountability and citizen and stakeholder participation and, ultimately, reinforce democracy and build citizens’ trust in public institutions.
The OECD defines open government as “a culture of governance that promotes the principles of transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation in support of democracy and inclusive growth” (OECD, 2017[1]). Romania has been creating laws, policies and frameworks that aim to open the government for more than two decades (Figure 1.3). The adoption of the country’s first access to information law in 2001 (Law no. 544/2001 on access to information of public interest) and the creation of a law on participation as early as 2003 (Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration) are testimony to this. The move towards increased openness experienced further impetus when Romania joined the European Union in 2007 and the Open Government Partnership (OGP) in 2011. Since then, an increasing number of initiatives aiming to foster citizens’ and stakeholders’ capacity to follow, understand, and monitor the actions and decisions of government and to actively shape them have been designed and implemented at all levels of the administration.
Today, islands of good practices in terms of open governance exist at all levels of the Romanian state and Romanian citizens enjoy more opportunities to access public information, find ways to have their voices heard and be actively involved in policy processes. Past achievements are reflected in Romania’s scores in existing international indicators in the field of open government. For example, in the Open Government dimension1 of the Rule of Law Index, which assesses the “extent to which a government shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations”, Romania ranked 34th out of 140 countries in 2022, up three places from 2021 and above neighbouring countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary (World Justice Project, 2022[2]). This is also acknowledged by international actors, such as the OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism, which finds that Romania has made “significant progress” in some areas of open government such as open data, access to public officials’ asset declaration and budget transparency (OGP IRM, 2020[3]).
While Romania has certainly made progress in terms of open government, there still remain several areas for improvement. Important challenges have emerged throughout the review process, such as the prominence of compliance-based culture in the administration rather than a citizen-focused one and a general need to foster implementation and enforcement of the existing legal and regulatory framework. Further efforts are needed to increase the impacts of reforms across the whole state and create a lasting culture of open government that can reinforce Romania’s democracy and make it more robust. It is in this context that the government of Romania collaborated with the OECD to receive an in-depth assessment of current and past reform efforts, identify achievements and bottlenecks, and receive policy recommendations that are inspired by international good practices. In particular, Romania requested that the OECD “support[s] the development of a concrete roadmap to allow for a better co-ordination and implementation of open government initiatives”, and “assist[s] in the definition of indicators for the monitoring and data-driven evaluation of the impact of open government initiatives”.
The analysis in this report is based on the Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (hereafter the “Recommendation”) (OECD, 2017[1]) which was adopted in 2017 as the first and only internationally recognised legal instrument in the area and which Romania adhered to in 2020. The Recommendation contains ten provisions that guide countries in their quest for more transparent, accountable, and participatory governments. The assessment presented throughout the Review also reflects the OECD Framework for Assessing the Openness of Governments (OECD, 2020[4]), which clarifies the interplays between all the elements necessary for an open government culture of governance. Finally, the Open Government Review of Romania is the first to use the new OECD Openness Spectrum, which provides a cross-cutting conceptual framework of what an open government is, taking a citizen’s perspective (Figure 1.1). This Open Government Review should be read in conjuncture with the Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[5]) which provides an in-depth assessment of the enabling environment for open government reforms in the country, with a focus on the protection of civic freedoms, press freedom, the role of civil society organisations, and citizen participation.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Romania became a representative democracy following the 1989 revolution. A decentralised unitary state with a strong centre-of-government, Romania has today well integrated into the international community and its standards. This is, among others, indicated by Romania’s membership in the European Union since 2007 and its ongoing Accession process to the OECD which started in 2022.
Macro challenges faced by Romania that have impacted the country’s open government agenda and that frame the assessment and recommendations provided in this Review include:
Levels of trust in government in Romania have been very low for several years, similar to other countries in the region. The OECD’s Government at a Glance 2021 found that confidence in the Romanian government fell from 20% in 2007 to 16% in 2020 (OECD, 2021[6]). By comparison, the average confidence rate in national government among OECD countries is 51%, with a 6.3 percentage points increase from 2007 (Ibid.).
Levels of corruption in Romania remain relatively high (OECD, 2022[7]). For example, the country ranks 66th out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perception Index 2021 (Transparency International, 2021[8]).
Like in many OECD countries, civic space in Romania is under pressure. For example, CIVICUS ranks Romania’s civic space as “Narrowed” in 2022 (CIVICUS, n.d.[9]).
Political instability coupled with frequent changes of government in recent years have had an impact on the government’s policy agenda. Changes in government have also resulted in high levels of turnover in the Romanian public sector (due to the abolition/creation of new Ministries, etc.) which, in turn, has meant that institutional memory is difficult to preserve, and that draft laws, strategies, and other policies are often stalled.
The fact that Romania passes a relatively high number of emergency ordinances per year (Venice Commission, 2019[10]) has resulted in existing checks and balances in the law-making process being circumvented, especially the commitment to involve citizens and stakeholders.
Like in all OECD Member countries, the recent COVID-19 health emergency has strongly affected policy processes in Romania, resulting, for example, in extensive use of emergency ordinances.
Similarly to many of its OECD peers, Romania’s public sector has a legalistic administrative culture and a public sector that generally focuses on compliance, which creates an environment that does not favour innovation, as also noted by the OECD’s Interim Assessment Report on Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Government of Romania (OECD, 2023[11]).
Source: OECD (2021[6]), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
Elements of open government started appearing with the adoption of Romania’s first democratic Constitution in 1991, which for example guaranteed that “[t]he right of the person to have access to any information of public interest may not be restricted” (Chapter II, Art. 31) and which established fundamental rights, such as citizens’ right to petition (Article 51) and citizens’ right of legislative initiative (Article 74). However, it was not until the beginning of the 2000s that a broader and more encompassing legal and regulatory framework for the different areas of open government was created. Notably, in 2001 and 2003, Romania adopted laws on access to information of public interest (Law no. 544/2001) and on decisional transparency in public administration (Law no. 52/2003). In 2011, the country further promulgated Law no. 62/2011 on social dialogue which regulates communication and the conclusion of agreements with social partners (which was replaced by Law no. 367/2022 on social dialogue in 2022).
The open government movement in Romania gained momentum in 2011/2012 when the country joined the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The participation in the OGP laid the foundation for a series of open government action plans that were designed in collaboration with civil society. Currently, Romania is in the process of implementing the 6th National Action Plan for the period of 2022-2024. The commitments made in the OGP action plans have been complemented with various strategic documents, such as National Anti-corruption Strategies.
Co-ordinated by a key centre of government institution in its early years (the Chancellery of the Prime Minister), the topic of open government gained further visibility when Romania appointed a Minister Delegate for Social Dialogue in 2012. From 2015 to 2018, a Ministry of Public Consultation and Civic/Social Dialogue existed in Romania.2 Today, the majority of responsibilities related to open government are again located in the centre of government. The Open Government Directorate in the General Secretariat of Government (GSG) is, for example, responsible for the OGP process, as well as for developing and implementing policies in the areas of access to information, public consultation, and civil society development.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Building on the 1991 Constitution, Romania has designed solid legal and regulatory frameworks for open government over the past decades, starting with the Law no. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest. The country is also one of the few OECD Member and Partner countries to have a dedicated law on participation. Notably, Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration regulates the participation of citizens and stakeholders in policy- and law-making processes. In addition, Law no. 367/2022 on social dialogue regulates communication and the conclusion of agreements with “social partners” (trade unions or trade union organisations, employers or employers’ organisations, as well as representatives of public administration authorities) on matters of common interest, creating more permanent channels of participation that go beyond discussions on individual draft policies and laws. In recent years, the GSG has also put important efforts into preparing legislative documents to regulate the implementation of relevant open government laws, including most recently Government Decision no. 830/2022 and Government Decision no. 831/2022. Finally, Romania recently adopted a law on open data and the reuse of public sector information (179/2022), which has the potential to make a significant contribution to the agenda.
However, the implementation of existing laws and regulations is often not treated in a co-ordinated manner because Romania currently does not have a strategic and integrated approach to open government (Government of Romania, 2022[12]). Obligations imposed on public institutions through laws and subsequent government decisions are not always aligned with each other, leading to confusion and non-uniform implementation. This is exacerbated by the fact that many important laws, e.g. the Administrative Code (Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2019), have been passed by emergency ordinance,3 which means that they have not been debated at length, hence with limited parliamentary oversight (Venice Commission, 2019[10]). Finally, some laws and regulations in the field are outdated. For example, Government Decision no. 26/2000 regarding associations and foundations dates back more than 20 years. In interviews, the government of Romania highlighted that the non-governmental sector had undergone major changes since then and that, as a result, the procedures for the establishment and administration of civil society organisations (CSOs), as well as the collaboration mechanisms between them and the state are today outdated. Moving forward, Romania could conduct an in-depth evaluation of its legal and regulatory framework for open government and compile a compendium of existing laws and regulations.
Evidence collected by the OECD shows that understandings of the concept of open government differ widely across Romania, as is the case in many OECD Member and Partner countries (OECD, forthcoming[13]). Many public servants associate being open mostly with publishing open government data and/or giving access to public information. The interactive side of open government (i.e. inclusive participation and interaction with citizens and stakeholders) is less frequently considered part of the concept. Moreover, while the evidence collected for this Review shows that all public institutions in Romania are already carrying out initiatives that aim to open the administration to citizens’ inputs and scrutiny (most of them as part of the obligation to implement relevant laws and regulations), these efforts are usually not framed as part of a dedicated open government agenda.
In this regard, the upcoming process to design an Open Government Strategy provides an opportunity to mainstream the concept of open government and explain the different elements that open government implies. Romania could, for example, use the strategy process to co-create its first official definition of open government. Involving all key public and non-public stakeholders in this exercise can ensure buy-in and enlarge Romania’s community of open government reformers.
According to the OECD (2016[14]), in the last years, thanks to reforms such as the creation of the Memorandum on increasing transparency and standardising the publication of information of public interest, compliance of line ministries with their obligations to proactively disclose information has increased. In line with the findings of the latest monitoring of the implementation of Law no. 544/2001, conducted by the General Secretariat of the Government of Romania, more and more information is being published on public institutions’ websites – often in an open data format (Government of Romania, 2021[15]). The report also finds that most public institutions have now appointed a person with special attributions for the implementation of Law no. 544/2001 and there has been a steady increase in the availability of information points/virtual libraries (Government of Romania, 2021[15]). The recent adoption of Government Decision (GD) no. 830/2022, which, among other priorities, updates and standardises the procedures for the proactive disclosure of information of public interest, is a further step in the right direction.
Beyond the positive developments regarding the implementation of the law, Romania has also made initial progress in key areas of government transparency. At the time of writing, Romania’s open data portal already hosted more than 3 000 datasets from 118 different agencies and use by citizens was reportedly growing (OGP IRM, 2022[16]). Budget transparency has also seen improvements over time with Romania now ranking 25th (out of 117 ranked countries) in the Open Budget Index prepared by the International Budget Partnership (2021[17]), although scores have declined from a high point in 2017. Finally, according to the OECD (2022[18]), some progress has also been made in bringing Romania’s Electronic System of Public Procurement (SEAP/SICAP) into line with the Open Contracting Data Standard and the creation of the Unique Register of Transparency of Interest (RUTI) has contributed to facilitating access to information on legal persons who interact with the central public administration.
While progress is notable, barriers for citizens and stakeholders to access information and data persist in Romania. The government’s own Evaluation of central and local public administrations’ practices in the decision-making process and ensuring access to information of public interest (Government of Romania, 2021[19]) for example finds that public institutions often display information in a “dysfunctional and unsystematised” way, thereby “creating the impression, where the data existed, that it was not published or that it was intentionally withheld away from the public eye”. Evidence collected by the OECD through the fact-finding missions also confirms that public information is often not published in a standardised manner, rarely in simple language or illustrated through visualisations, and frequently in hardly accessible formats. This limits the use and re-use by citizens and stakeholders and increases the burden of access to information requests on both public officials and citizens. In particular, non-public stakeholders highlighted that sensitive types of information (e.g. those relating to budgeting or procurement data) are often published in formats in which the re-use of information is burdensome, such as PDF documents, and/or past the legally established deadlines (Funky citizens, 2022[20]).
In terms of public institutions’ responses to access to information requests, the Romanian government’s data also shows a generally positive trend (e.g. quicker responses, less denied requests, etc.). However, there are indications that the consistent application of exemptions, especially regarding personal data protection, can be improved (European Commission, 2021[21]; European Commission, 2022[22]). Further, interviews conducted for this Review revealed that formats of responses are not always adequate (e.g. scanned PDFs) and that challenges for appealing denied requests persist, including varying application of existing legislation by courts on concrete cases (Center for Public Innovation, 2017[23]).
The findings of the Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[5]) further show that institutions commonly disregard the 10-day deadline for responding to access to information requests. While the law indicates that simple requests must be answered in 10 days, all answers must be provided no longer than 30 days after the request has been made, with many public bodies “exploit[ing] the ignorance of the applicant” by using this upper limit as their deadline (Balkans and Caucasus Transeuropa Observatory, 2017[24]). In this sense, there is a need to raise awareness among citizens and stakeholders on how to exercise this right, alongside dedicated efforts to ensure that accessibility and inclusion are prioritised, for example, through the use of simple language, providing clear guidelines on making requests, and offering support for marginalised groups and those with special needs.
Moving forward, Romania could use the momentum created by the recent adoption of Law no. 179/2022 regarding open data and the reuse of public sector information to introduce additional reforms to increase citizens’ and stakeholders’ ability to follow, understand and monitor the decisions and activities of government. This should, first of all, include fully implementing the provisions of Government Decision no. 830/2022, in particular those relating to enhancing the standardisation of information on public websites. Romania should further start putting a greater focus on the accessibility of information of public interest, including fostering the development and use of guidelines (e.g. regarding plain language). Finally, opportunities arising from improved monitoring and evaluation of access to information requests could be exploited more. For example, frequently requested information could be released proactively, and user satisfaction be considered.
To further enhance reactive disclosure of information, Romania could consider creating a single portal to launch and process information requests (e.g. as part of the recommended Open Government Portal or as part of the existing National Electronic System (SEN), www.e-guvernare.ro/en which is managed by the Authority for the Digitalization). This portal should exploit synergies with existing portals in the area of transparency and open government, such as the open data portal. Romania should further ensure that all public institutions respect the deadlines for responding to requests that are set by law, for example by generalising online tracking systems for requests. In this regard, a register of documents such as the European Commission's Register of Commission Documents (europa.eu), supported by a document management system is essential for complying with deadlines of ATI requests. Over time, Romania could consider reviewing Law no. 544/2001 on access to information of public interest to offer an external review process in case of denied ATI requests. Finally, medium to long-term reforms may also include the establishment of a dedicated body to ensure independent oversight, supervision, monitoring, and evaluation of Law 544/2001 with a clear mandate, sustained resources, and enforcement capacity.
A significant share of non-public stakeholders that responded to the OECD Surveys on Open Government in Romania saw positive developments in terms of participatory practices in the country, acknowledging that both the quality and the number of processes had increased in recent years. The government’s monitoring of Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration also shows that some public institutions in Romania are making some progress in implementing the law, having for example established a person or structure responsible for the relationship with civil society. Digital tools, such as the e-consultation website, contact forms, and social media engagement, are slowly gaining importance in the public sector. In addition, according to the results of the Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[5]), certain non-governmental initiatives such as the online petitions and campaigns platform Declic (https://www.declic.ro/) have galvanised support for numerous policy issues, including recent legal reforms with respect to citizens’ voting age, amending the Criminal Code to ensure accountability for crimes and revising legislation on the judiciary in co-operation with civil society.
Despite this initial progress, evidence also shows that public institutions still widely see citizens and stakeholder participation as a formality, rather than a transformative new way of conducting public policy. As noted in an evaluation conducted by the General Secretariat of the Government, “most of the times, the initiative to launch a participatory process rests with public institutions and their predominant purpose is to fulfill a legal obligations” (Government of Romania, 2021[19]). The evaluation further noted that while the current normative framework establishes legal mechanisms capable of stimulating participation and establishing a solid collaborative relationship with civil society, the use of such mechanisms fails to make a real contribution to improving the quality of public decision-making (Government of Romania, 2021[19]). Participatory processes are in practice mostly conducted at later stages of the policy cycle and few spaces for real in-depth interaction between decision makers and citizens and stakeholders exist, as traditional forms of participation (e.g. online consultation) remain prevalent. Consultations typically take place online (OECD, 2022[18]) and deadlines for consultation are commonly set to the minimum length that is provided by the law (10 days). The Civic Space Review of Romania concludes that “the process of holding consultations is perceived as formalistic, with little focus on exploring additional, more innovative methods, uneven feedback mechanisms, and a limited understanding among public officials of the benefits of participation” (OECD, 2023[5]).
In addition, the inclusiveness of participatory processes is still limited in Romania. Processes are often dominated by the “usual suspects” with few efforts made to remove barriers and involve citizens and in particular, minorities, such as Roma. Both the present Review and the Civic Space Review of Romania note a general lack of emphasis on engaging citizens in policy processes and decision-making in Romania. While the General Secretariat has taken different initiatives to improve the consistency and quality of public consultations, including through the adoption of Government Decision no. 831/2022 which aims to standardise and streamline the procedure for participation and to create a uniform set of standards throughout the public administration, the government is not yet “equipped with the tools and skills to cope with the expansion and dynamics of Romania's associative environment” (Government of Romania, 2021[19]). The long-term effects of this approach, whereby the letter of the law is followed without achieving the actual purpose of the law, are an unwillingness of citizens and civil society to engage and a lack of trust in laws and law-making institutions (OECD, 2023[5]). Levels of involvement remain very low and some reports (e.g. (Council of Europe, 2019[25])) have noted a general deterioration in the relations between CSOs and government officials. The Civic Space Review of Romania also notes a significant lack of trust between the public sector and the CSO sector (OECD, 2023[5]).
Moving forward, the Open Government Review and Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[5]) identify opportunities for Romania to better enable citizens and stakeholders to take part in and influence the activities and decisions of the government. First of all, Romania should reduce its dependence on the use of emergency ordinances and could specify more narrow limits for avoiding participatory practices due to emergencies to ensure that parliamentary oversight and stakeholder and citizen consultation remain the norm. Strengthening citizens’ ability to get involved in public decision-making could also include fostering participation earlier in the policy cycle, including for example by creating mandatory pre-consultations for projects with a special impact (e.g. according to ex ante regulatory assessments of significant impacts) or which concern the spending of public funds, including at the conceptual stage, to gain feedback on citizens’ priorities and needs.
Romania could also start shifting the focus from consultation to engagement practices by fostering innovation and experimentation with new participatory methods and practices (e.g. representative deliberative processes, hackathons, participatory budgeting, etc.). This should also involve putting a larger focus on involving citizens – and not only organised stakeholders – in public decision-making. To further enhance the quality of participatory processes, the government could establish clear and binding standards and ensure the full implementation of existing regulations (most notably Government Decision no. 831/2022). In this regard, enhancing the quality of participation also requires that all public institutions provide feedback to participants and communicate the results of each participatory process they conduct, as mandated by Government Decision no. 831/2022 for certain types of processes. The government could further take measures to foster the inclusiveness of participatory processes, including by conducting targeted outreach activities to increase the involvement of a wider variety of stakeholders. Finally, Romania should pursue the dissemination and mainstreaming of the e-consultare platform, including by providing support and guidance to ensure all public institutions at the central level make use of this platform. This could be complemented by increased co-ordination between the e-consultare platform, and the different portals deployed at the local level – with a medium to long-term objective of increased harmonisation and integration of all digital tools for citizen participation in Romania.
While efforts to foster public officials’ open government literacy have been made by the General Secretariat of the Government (e.g. through the adoption of guidelines and the provision of trainings), public officials and civil society stakeholders in Romania still lack an “open government culture”. Existing guidelines and trainings are not widely known and, as a consequence, rarely used.
As discussed above, public officials mostly implement open government policies and practices because there is a legal obligation to do so. Overall, there is limited innovative culture across the administration and few public institutions have tried to go beyond the legal requirements, mostly due to the lack of incentives and capacities. A report on Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Government of Romania prepared by the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) noted that while there have been some positive attempts to change this, innovative initiatives and strategic directions are currently not being implemented consistently or in a comprehensive, long-term manner (OECD, 2023[11]). Like a number of other OECD Member and Partner countries, Romania faces challenges to attract and retain the right talent in government (in particular younger, more educated talent more inclined to commit to open government), as the principles of open government are not yet linked to the incentive structures for career management and progression in the civil service.
Moreover, human resources dedicated to open government practices and the required skills to implement them are still limited across the Romanian administration. In most public institutions, the number of staff in charge of implementing relevant open government initiatives is small and those responsible for implementing them often have responsibilities in other areas. In this regard, the General Secretariat of the Government’s evaluation (Government of Romania, 2021[19]) finds that human resources need to be increased and that there is a need to move towards more encompassing structures in charge of relevant open government policies.
As a first step, Romania could consider including a dedicated course on open government in mandatory training requirements for public officials, including senior public officials. Further efforts could also be made to organise trainings and capacity-building activities for public officials responsible for interactions with civil society and the public. To provide a more permanent platform for learning and dialogue, Romania could build on the existing OGP Club and further develop it into a stable community of practice on open government, as done by peer countries such as Spain. Finally, the GSG could design an annual Open Government Award that rewards outstanding initiatives to incentivise reforms and innovations.
A wide range of government policies/strategies in Romania include policy initiatives that aim to promote openness. Notably, in addition to the OGP action plans, the recurring National Anti-corruption Strategies have traditionally been used as a platform to foster open government. Open government initiatives have further been promoted through policy tools such as the 2014-2020 Strategy for Consolidating the Public Administration and the National Strategy on the Digital Agenda. Importantly, fostering better access to information and bringing citizen’s and stakeholders’ voices into policy processes are also priorities of Romania’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan and a key element of the current Government Programme.
Evidence collected for this Review shows that initiatives that aim to foster open government principles are still designed and implemented in a scattered and isolated manner, without building the critical mass needed to create a full-fledged and shared government vision of openness. For the time being, no coherent whole-of-government policy agenda to promote openness exists in Romania. The lack of a strategic approach to promote the government-citizen nexus has resulted in an agenda that is characterised by high levels of fragmentation (e.g. information about participatory processes is published in different locations, there is no central portal to make access to information requests, etc.).
As committed to in target 407 of the Recovery and Resilience Plan, Romania should now move forward with the inclusive design of its first holistic and integrated Open Government Strategy4 (with an integrated Civil Society Strategy).5 Experience of other OECD Member and Partner countries shows that an Open Government Strategy can indeed be a useful tool to provide a clear vision to the agenda and bring open government initiatives to the highest level of government, while also setting measurable objectives/targets for all public institutions in terms of open government.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
Through its six Open Government Partnership (OGP) action plans, Romania has adopted over 70 commitments most of which were developed and implemented in collaboration with civil society stakeholders. The implementation of the action plans has led to some positive results, such as the creation of online portals providing access to participatory processes at central government level (E-Consultare platform), or increased transparency in two major funding sources for local development (OGP IRM, 2023[26]; OGP IRM, 2022[16]). The action plans have also facilitated an initial push towards open government at local levels which resulted in municipalities such as Bucharest (sector 2), Iasi, Cluj, and Timisoara embarking upon dedicated open government agendas. Finally, the action plans have provided impetus for Romania to publish increasing amounts of open government data (e.g. budget and procurement data).
Despite this, Romania has not fully exploited the opportunities provided by the OGP process to achieve transformative outcomes. Buy-in into the process is still limited across government, civil society engagement is low (as noted by the OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism in its most recent report) (OGP IRM, 2020[3]) and existing governance mechanisms (e.g. Romania’s National Coordination Committee for OGP) remain relatively weak. Furthermore, the OGP process in Romania is mostly unfunded. As highlighted by the government (Government of Romania, 2022[12]), ministries have limited funds for the implementation of their OGP commitments and GSG’s budget for horizontal activities is small.
In line with recommendations provided by the OGP IRM (2022[16]), Romania could put additional emphasis on ensuring a more transparent and inclusive co-creation process. Citizen and stakeholder engagement should also be fostered during the implementation of the action plan, for example by designating civil society partners for specific commitments more frequently. Finally, as also recommended by the Civic Space Review of Romania (OECD, 2023[5]), the country could also use its future action plans to design more transformative and ambitious commitments that are implemented more rigorously.
In 2015, Romania formed a Ministry for Public Consultation and Civic Dialogue (MPCCD) to ensure a coherent and systematic approach to public consultation and the government’s relationship with civil society stakeholders. However, in 2018, the MPCCD was disbanded and its mandate was transferred to a newly created Directorate for Open Government in the General Secretariat of the Government (Council of Europe, 2019[25])
The General Secretariat of the Government (GSG) – one of the two key Centre of Government institutions in Romania – is today at the heart of Romania’s institutional architecture for open government, co-ordinating and overseeing many relevant open government policies (e.g. access to information, open data, participation, etc.). While the GSG’s Open Government Directorate has experienced, well-trained, and dedicated staff working on these issues, the team remains small and understaffed, in contrast to the large portfolio it manages. Furthermore, political commitment to the open government agenda has varied over time. When the agenda was championed by a Secretary of State in the Prime Minister’s Chancellery from 2013 to 2017, important steps forward were taken and Romania was, for example, part of the OGP Steering Committee. Currently, however, there is no senior government leader that promotes the agenda at the Cabinet level.
At the level of public institutions, Romanian legislation mandates the establishment of responsibilities in different fields of open government (e.g. OGP process, access to public information, answering petitions, open government data, etc.) but evidence collected through the OECD fact-finding missions and surveys shows that relevant offices rarely co-ordinate and skills and resources are often limited, as also acknowledged by the 2021 GSG evaluation (Government of Romania, 2021[19]).
The clustering of competences for different open government policies and practices under the GSG’s Open Government Service provides a unique opportunity for Romania to develop more ambitious and integrated reforms. Moving forward, the Open Government Service could move towards becoming a Centre of Expertise on open government, monitoring policy implementation, transferring knowledge and providing targeted support to public institutions both at central and at local levels. In this regard, the eventual adoption of an Open Government Strategy may also require empowering the Open Government Service to create strong impacts. This may include providing it with additional human, financial and technical resources and attaching it to a Secretary of State to increase the political weight of the open government agenda. In the medium- to long-term, Romania could further consider creating Open Government Offices at the level of each public institution to foster co-ordination and coherence between different existing portfolios (e.g. relationship with civil society, access to information, OGP-process). Since the creation of new institutional structures can be cumbersome, Romania could alternatively focus on strengthening the framework of open government competences, fostering the co-ordination of existing resources for the implementation of Law no. 544/2001 and Law no. 52/2003 and creating incentives for building a more robust open government culture, as further discussed below.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
The government of Romania, led by the GSG, has created mechanisms to co-ordinate parts of the country’s open government agenda, such as the National Coordination Committee for OGP which was established in 2016 to oversee and co-ordinate the OGP action plan. Moreover, in addition to having people in charge of the implementation of relevant laws, most Ministries have established both a senior public official and a technical public official responsible for the OGP process.
Despite these efforts, the Review finds that there is still limited co-ordination and sharing of experiences across the central government and across levels of government. Existing good practices often remain confined to specific institutions, including at the local level. As part of its efforts to design and implement its first holistic and integrated Open Government Strategy, Romania could consider creating a National Open Government Steering Committee to foster more permanent co-ordination of activities. Romania could further aim to revamp its National Coordination Committee for OGP by increasing participation from the highest level of government, by enlarging its mandate and inviting more local governments and civil society organisations to participate and work collaboratively with the central government.
In recent years, despite the constantly changing institutional architecture of digitalisation in Romania (which is discussed in the forthcoming OECD Digital Government Review of Romania (OECD, forthcoming[27])), the country has increasingly used digital government tools to foster openness. Notably, the progressive creation of online platforms in different fields of open government (e.g. e-consultare, RUTI, CONECT, etc.) has the potential to make a significant contribution to open the government over time. Furthermore, at the level of public institutions, new tools for interacting with citizens have emerged. For example, the Ministry of Justice has included electronic contact forms on its websites that allow for the electronic submission of petitions or requests. Others, such as the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration give citizens the opportunity for real-time tracking of access to information requests, while some subnational governments, such as the Câmpulung City Hall have created mobile applications for submitting complaints about community issues. However, progress in terms of using digital government tools to promote openness is hindered by the persisting digital divides.
Moving forward, as the digitalisation of the public sector progresses, Romania has an opportunity to integrate open government considerations into newly designed digital policies and services. Romania could further create an Open Government Portal to foster coherence throughout the different relevant websites (e.g. RUTI, CONECT, e-Consultare, local platforms, etc.) of the public sector. At the same time, due to the persisting digital divides (see also the Civic Space Review of Romania (2023[5]) and the OECD Digital Government Review of Romania (forthcoming[27])), Romania should pay particular attention to secure omnichannel approaches as a means to foster the inclusion of all parts of the population (e.g. in rural areas, for elderly, minorities). An omnichannel approach can enable a more inclusive digital transformation, allowing online and mobile services to co-exist with face-to-face or over-the-phone service delivery (OECD, 2020[28]).
Open government is a vast and diversified field that is inherently difficult to monitor and evaluate in an aggregated way. Romania already collects a wide range of quality information and data on different open government policies and practices, mostly in the framework of the monitoring of the implementation of relevant open government laws and regulations and through the monitoring exercises conducted for different policy documents that are under implementation (e.g. the OGP action plan). In particular, the periodic monitoring of the implementation of Law no. 52/2003 on decisional transparency in public administration and Law no. 544/2001 on free access to public information is a good practice, as it provides the government with data to make better decisions. In addition, in 2021, the General Secretariat of the Government recently conducted an evaluation of central and local public administrations’ practices in the decision-making process and in ensuring access to information of public interest which provides useful practical recommendations for reform, some of which are already being implemented (Government of Romania, 2021[19]).
In order to further scale up monitoring and evaluation efforts and build better indicators, Romania could strengthen its ongoing monitoring processes, for example by adding additional indicators to monitoring templates. In addition, the planned adoption of an Open Government Strategy marks an opportunity for Romania to develop an Open Government Index and/or Open Government Maturity Model that are coupled with metrics and indicators to monitor the implementation of its open government agenda and evaluate its broader impact. Finally, building on the 2021 evaluation mentioned above, Romania should consider conducting recurrent evaluations of the implementation of relevant laws and policies, including in further areas of open government (e.g. open government data, petitions, etc.).
Many subnational governments, in particular municipalities, in Romania are already implementing open government initiatives, often without labelling them as such. For example, municipalities are leading the way to a more innovative participation in Romania, by implementing participatory budgets and digital platforms to get closer to their citizens and hear their views and inputs throughout the policy cycle. In relation to this, two Romanian municipalities (Iasi and Timisoara) are going one step further and have adopted an OGP local action plan. However, the development and implementation of open government initiatives at the local level is very unevenly spread. Champions of open government can mainly be found in big urban areas and there is no generalised or systemic approach to promote open government at subnational levels. For the time being, most subnational governments do not have a strategic document on open government.
The central government has taken first steps to support local governments in their open government efforts (e.g. through the Guidelines Open Government Recommendations for the local level administration; the Network of Champions in the field of integrity; etc.). Notably, thanks to a commitment included in Romania’s 2018-2020 OGP action plan, the Ministry for Development, Public Works, and Administration started designing a dedicated agenda on this.
As for the Romanian Parliament, neither of the two Chambers has embarked upon a dedicated Open Parliament agenda. While transparency initiatives are in place, such as broadcasting the plenary and some commission sessions on the Parliament’s website (Council of Europe, 2019[25]), and consultation and petitions are mandatory, the legislature could increase the ambition and scope of these initiatives. Furthermore, the Parliament is currently not fully exploiting the potential of data, digital tools and innovation. Lastly, the Parliament does not have a vision or a strategical framework that brings together the scattered actions currently in implementation, and neither of the Chambers is currently involved in the national government’s open government agenda.
The Review identifies opportunities to foster the move towards an open state, including by adopting a high-level political declaration/agreement on an open state, by increasing support from GSG to work with subnational authorities, by co-producing solutions with subnational authorities, by providing a permanent space (e.g. roundtable, forum, etc.) for collaboration and co-ordination between levels of government and across branches of the state and by strategically using the OGP process and the Open Government Strategy. Romania could further consider creating a dedicated agenda to increase the openness of the legislature (“Open Parliament”) and improve the mechanisms for transparency and citizen participation in Parliament, for example by creating an open data platform and by modernising the Parliament’s existing petitions platform.
After many years of implementing open government reforms, Romania is now at a critical juncture. Most of the country’s efforts to open the government in the past decade have focused on what could be called “OpenGov1.0”, i.e. the establishment of the basic pre-requisites (e.g. adopting decrees to foster the implementation of the legal framework, creating portals, etc.).
Moving forward, Romania should focus more on mainstreaming the concept of open government, bringing the benefits of open government approaches to sectorial policy agendas (e.g. health, education, etc.) and creating lasting impacts through higher levels of collaboration with citizens and stakeholders, implementation and enforcement (“OpenGov 2.0”). Accordingly, the recent adoption of the Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), which includes a number of potentially impactful open government reforms, provides a unique window of opportunity. The RRP is coupled with significant financial resources and will guide Romania’s policy agenda for the years to come.
The ongoing process of Romania to become a Member of the OECD reinforces the current momentum for government and civil society to regain trust, by providing further impetus and by giving a framework that allows for the adoption and implementation of crucial reforms. Taken together, the RRP and the OECD Accession process could be a means for additional and more meaningful collaboration with citizens and stakeholders, which can ultimately increase citizens’ trust in government and reinforce democracy.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
1. Foster a coherent understanding of the concept of open government across the government and mainstream its benefits across the public sector and society:
2. Make additional efforts to increase citizens‘ ability to see, understand and monitor the decisions and activities of government:
Further enhance the standardisation of proactive disclosed information on government websites by fully applying the model laid out in GD no. 830/2022.
As part of the upcoming Open Government Strategy, design a dedicated policy to promote the publication of information and data in an open data format.
Start putting an increasing focus on the accessibility of information, including by fostering the development and use of guidelines to support public authorities (e.g. in the use of plain language) and by providing more trainings to relevant public officials.
Proactively disclose the most frequently requested information, such as those related to the use of public funds and the way the institution's duties are fulfilled.
Ensure that public institutions respect the deadlines for responding to access to information requests set out by law (e.g. through an online tracking system).
Review Law no. 544/2001 on access to information to offer an external review process in case of denied or not-responded ATI requests.
In this connection, consider establishing a dedicated body to ensure oversight, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of Law no. 544/2001 with a clear mandate, sustained resources, an adequate level of independence, and enforcement capacity, in line with good practices in OECD Member countries. Among others, the dedicated body could complement the current procedure of contesting the refusal of public institutions to provide public information in Court, contributing to faster resolution of complaints and decongestion of the activity of the Courts.
3. Enable and empower citizens and stakeholders to take part in and contribute to the activities and decisions of the government:
Foster participation early in the policy cycle by consistently involving citizens and non-public stakeholders in the decision making on available policy solutions to public challenges (e.g. pre-consultations). For example, consider mandating early consultations for projects with an elevated impact or that concern the spending of public funds.
Adapt participatory processes, including type, format and communication, to the concrete policy question(s) at hand and to the main target audience in order to obtain more pertinent inputs.
Put a specific focus on involving citizens (vs. organised stakeholders) in policy processes by providing access to a range of participatory processes and by providing skills and trainings to build the confidence and competence of public officials to understand the benefits of this way of working.
Take measures to foster the inclusiveness of participatory processes, including by conducting targeted outreach activities to foster the involvement of a wider variety of stakeholders in policymaking.
Shift the focus from formal written consultation to more participative engagement practices by fostering innovation and experimentation with new participatory methods and practices (e.g. representative deliberative processes, hackathons, participatory budgeting, etc.).
Enhance the capacity of civil servants to implement existing legal rules and standards on public consultation (i.e. those established by Law no. 52/2003 and GD no. 831/2022) as well as to innovate and experiment with new participatory methods.
Ensure that all public institutions provide feedback to participants and communicate the results of each participatory process they conduct (as mandated by GD no. 831/2022).
Consider holding public debates and meetings online or in hybrid mode to allow as many interested parties as possible to participate and live stream them on the institutional website and/or social media platforms.
Specify more narrow limits for skipping participatory practices due to emergencies and ensure that emergency ordinances are only used in exceptional cases so that parliamentary oversight and stakeholder and citizen consultation remain the norm (“crisis protocols”).
Pursue the dissemination and mainstreaming of the E-consultare platform, and provide support and guidance to all relevant stakeholders, to ensure all public institutions make use of the centralised participation platform.
4. Move forward with the design of Romania‘s first holistic and integrated Open Government Strategy (as committed to in target 407 of the Recovery and Resilience Plan) to provide a clear vision of the agenda to open government and bring open government approaches to the Cabinet table (“scale-up”):
Put an emphasis on including initiatives that aim to foster citizen and civil society involvement in the policy cycle, as recommended in the Civic Space Review of Romania.
Embed the Strategy in Romania‘s existing policy framework and ensure full complementarity with the National Anti-corruption Strategy and the objectives of the Recovery and Resilience Plan.
Design the strategy through an inclusive process by involving citizens and (non-)public stakeholders across government levels at all stages of its development and implementation.
5. Strengthen the OGP process:
Put additional emphasis on ensuring a more inclusive co-creation process of the OGP action plans.
Foster citizen and stakeholder engagement during the implementation of the action plan.
Increase collaboration with civil society, academia and other non-governmental stakeholders.
Promote a more active participation of subnational public authorities – as well as civil society representatives – throughout the OGP process as a way to increase co-ordination (and synergies) between the national and local agendas.
Use future action plans to design more ambitious commitments, including on the protection and promotion of civic space.
6. Further empower the Open Government Directorate in the General Secretariat of the Government to make it a centre of expertise for opening the government and ensure that it has the necessary means and resources to design and implement the Open Government Strategy:
Increase the human and financial resources of the Open Government Directorate and its Open Government Service to ensure a successful transformation towards a centre of expertise.
Foster the Open Government Directorate’s capacity to co-ordinate open government reforms across all levels of government, including by providing it with additional co-ordination tools (e.g. the National Open Government Steering Committee recommended below) and a stronger co-ordination mandate.
Consider attaching the Open Government Directorate directly to a Secretary of State to generate stronger political leadership for the open government agenda.
Increase the support that the Open Government Directorate at GSG provides to public authorities at the central level and beyond.
7. Foster governance frameworks and mechanisms for an integrated open government agenda:
Create a National Open Government Steering Committee composed of relevant public and non-public stakeholders to steer the implementation of the open government agenda, including the recommended Open Government Strategy.
Review the functioning of the existing Multi-stakeholder Forum to ensure high-level commitment and ongoing civil society engagement throughout the NAP cycle and consider making it a sub-group of the recommended Steering Committee.
Create Open Government Offices at the level of each public institution to foster co-ordination and coherence between different existing portfolios (e.g. relationship with civil society, access to information, OGP-process).
8. Build skills, awareness, and knowledge on open government within the public sector and in civil society:
Include a general introductory course on open government in mandatory training requirements for public officials, for example by reusing available material (e.g. provided by the OGP, other governments, etc.).
Organise specific trainings and capacity-building activities for public officials from national and local governments that are responsible for interactions with civil society and the public (e.g. on how to conduct public consultations and other forms of participation; how to reach out to citizens and civil society stakeholders; etc.).
Provide positive incentives by designing an annual Open Government Award to reward outstanding initiatives implemented by public officials and non-public stakeholders.
Transform the OGP Club into a more encompassing Open Government Network/Community of Practice to foster an informal exchange of ideas and experiences.
9. Foster monitoring and evaluation of open government reforms:
Review ongoing monitoring exercises (e.g. those for Law no. 52/2003 and Law no. 544/2001) to add additional elements on inclusiveness, accessibility etc. and put a greater focus on evaluations and lessons learnt.
Proactively make monitoring results publicly available in a graphic format (e.g. on the recommended Open Government Portal).
Design an Open Government Index and/or Maturity Model to set a baseline standard of what good practices looks like and allow for comparison between public institutions within a defined framework.
10. Make full use of digital government tools to promote openness:
Create an Open Government Portal to foster coherence throughout the different relevant websites (e.g. RUTI, CONECT, e-Consultare, local platforms, etc.) of the public sector so as to not burden citizens with adapting to diverse user experiences and alternative online tools.
Embrace an omnichannel approach to participatory processes to secure inclusiveness and foster a broader representation of societal groups in citizen and stakeholder participation practices.
11. Foster the move towards an open state:
Provide a permanent space (e.g. roundtable, forum, etc.) for collaboration and co-ordination between levels of government and branches of the state. This mechanism could be part of the recommended National Open Government Steering Committee.
Promote horizontal collaboration and exchange of experiences between subnational governments (i.e. Communes, Towns, Municipalities, Counties and local councils), including through the recommended community of practice, etc.
Adopt a high-level political declaration/agreement on open state that is endorsed by representatives from central and subnational government, the Legislative, the Judiciary and independent public institutions to provide strong high-level support to the open government agenda.
Strategically use the OGP process and the Open Government Strategy as a platform to foster the move towards an open state, including by designing actions and commitments from all levels of government and all branches of the state in them.
12. Create a dedicated agenda to increase the openness of the legislature (“Open Parliament”):
Innovate and improve the mechanisms for transparency and citizen participation in Parliament, for example by creating an open data platform and by modernising the Parliament’s existing petitions platform.
Adopt a policy roadmap to foster openness in the Legislature (e.g. Open Parliament action plan/strategy).
Create a mandate for an Open Parliament Office and provide it with dedicated human and financial resources.
References
[24] Balkans and Caucasus Transeuropa Observatory (2017), Romania and access to information: a law that works, https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Romania/Romania-e-accesso-alle-informazioni-una-legge-che-funziona-178044 (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[23] Center for Public Innovation (2017), Public interest information obtained in court, https://www.inovarepublica.ro/informatii-de-interes-public-castigate-instanta/ (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[9] CIVICUS (n.d.), Romania Country Profile, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/romania/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
[25] Council of Europe (2019), Civil participation in the decision-making process - Follow-up fact finding visit to Romania, https://rm.coe.int/report-visit-of-the-conference-of-ingos-to-romania-ii-2018/168097e57e (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[22] European Commission (2022), “2022 Rule of Law Report: Romania”, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/52_1_194026_coun_chap_romania_en.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2022).
[21] European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report: Romania, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0724&from=EN (accessed on 25 April 2022).
[20] Funky citizens (2022), Transparency of Municipal Budgets, https://funky.ong/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Analiza-Transparenta-bugetelor-de-municipii-Funky-Citizens.pdf.
[12] Government of Romania (2022), Background Report prepared for the OECD Open Government Review of Romania, Unpublished working paper.
[19] Government of Romania (2021), Evaluation of central and local public administartions’ practices in the decision-making process and in ensuring access to information of public interest, https://ogp.gov.ro/nou/panorama/coordonarea-gestionarii-proceselor-inovative-pentru-eficientizarea-participarii-la-deciziile-administratiei-publice/?psp_download=1 (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[15] Government of Romania (2021), Synthesis of the annual reports on the implementation by the authorities and institutions of the central and local public administration of the legislation on free access to information of public interest in 2020, https://sgg.gov.ro/1/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sinteza-rapoartelor-anuale-privind-implementarea-de-catre-autoritati-si-institutii-ale-administratiei-publice-centrale-si-locale-a-legislatiei-privind-liberul-acces-la-informatii-de-interes-public-in.pdf.
[17] International Budget Partnership (2021), Romania - Open Budget Survey 2021, https://internationalbudget.org/sites/default/files/country-surveys-pdfs/2021/open-budget-survey-romania-2021-en.pdf.
[5] OECD (2023), Civic Space Review of Romania, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f11191be-en.
[11] OECD (2023), Strengthening the Innovative Capacity of the Government of Romania: Interim Assessment Report, Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Innovative-Capacity-Romania_Interim-Asessment-Report.pdf.
[18] OECD (2022), Evaluation of the Romanian National Anti-corruption Strategy 2016-2020, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/corruption/ethics/evaluation-romanian-national-anti-corruption-strategy-2016-2020.pdf.
[7] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e2174606-en.
[6] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[4] OECD (2020), A Roadmap for Assessing the Impact of Open Government Reform, Paper presented to the OECD Working Party on Open Government, GOV/PGC/OG(2020)5.
[28] OECD (2020), “The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six dimensions of a Digital Government”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 02, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en.
[1] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0438, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[14] OECD (2016), Romania: Scan, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/public-governance-review-scan-romania.pdf.
[27] OECD (forthcoming), Digital Government in Romania.
[13] OECD (forthcoming), Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the 2017 OECD Recommendation on Open Government.
[26] OGP IRM (2023), Independent Reporting Mechanism Action Plan Review: Romania 2022–2024, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Romania_Action-Plan-Review_2022-2024_EN_for-public-comment.pdf.
[16] OGP IRM (2022), Independent Reporting Mechanism Action Plan Review: Romania 2020–2022, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Romania_Action-Plan-Review_2020-2022_EN.pdf.
[3] OGP IRM (2020), Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Romania Transitional Results, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/independent-reporting-mechanism-action-plan-review/ (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[8] Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index, https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[10] Venice Commission (2019), Opinion on Emergency Ordinances GEO No. 7 and GEO No. 12 Amending the Laws of Justice (Romania), https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2019)014-e (accessed on 13 November 2022).
[2] World Justice Project (2022), WJP Rule of Law Index: Open Government - Romania, https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/2022/Romania/Open%20Government/ (accessed on 13 November 2023).
Notes
← 1. which assesses the “extent to which a government shares information, empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations”.
← 2. The Ministry of Public Consultation and Civic Dialogue was transformed into the Ministry of Public Consultation and Social Dialogue for the period of 2017-2018, taking attributions related to the relationship with unions and employers.
← 3. In cases where an emergency or exceptional circumstances require immediate solutions to avoid prejudice to the public interest, Article 7 par. 13 of Law no. 52/2003, based on relevant provisions of the constitution, stipulates that the adoption of a draft act may take place, using a fast-track procedure without the need for public consultation (OECD, 2023[5]).
← 4. The Recommendation of the Council on Open Government defines an Open Government Strategy as: “A document that defines the open government agenda of the central government and/or of any of its sub-national levels, as well as that of a single public institution or thematic area, and that includes key open government initiatives, together with short, medium and long-term goals and indicators”.
← 5. The commitment to design a Civil Society Strategy is an integral part of the parallel ongoing Civic Space Review of Romania. In order not to create duplications and have a more holistic whole-of-government roadmap to foster the government’s relationship with citizens and civil society stakeholders, it was decided that the Civil Society Strategy would become part of the wider Open Government Strategy that is discussed throughout the present Open Government Review.