Estonia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

Estonia’s third action plan derived its commitments from existing government initiatives, including citizen-centred public services, and open and inclusive policy-making. Civil society stakeholders expressed disappointment over the lack of ambition in the action plan and concern over the lack of consultation during implementation.

Highlights

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact

Process

The Coordinating Council determined the main themes for Estonia’s third action plan prior to the co-creation process. While CSOs proposed most of the action plan’s commitments, their scope was tailored to fit existing government initiatives. The Coordinating Council met only once during the first year of implementation.

Performance

Several commitments in Estonia’s third action plan saw substantial implementation during the first year. However, others have been delayed, such as the commitments on participatory budgeting at the local level and transparency of NGO funding.

IRM Recommendations

1. Establish motivation and tools for stronger everyday leadership, both in the Coordinating Council and OGP Civil Society Roundtable, and consider revising the status of the Coordinating Council.
2. Include activities that are coherent with the state reforms that already have their own budgets, but would offer clear additional value to already planned activities. Find a better balance between pre-existing plans and new initiatives.
3. Each commitment should have a CSO responsible for monitoring its implementation, while also having enough capacity and resources fulfil this task.
4. Include commitments that are well defined, ambitious, and feasible over a two-year period, and that have a public-facing element.
5. Include stakeholder priority areas (such as anti-corruption activities, local decision-making structures, and youth policy) in the action plan.