Skip Navigation

Inception Report – Action plan – Gwangju, Republic of Korea, 2021 – 2022

Overview

Name of Evaluator

KIM, Yeong-seon

Email

0sunsky@hanmail.net

Member

Gwangju, Republic of Korea

Action Plan

Action plan – Gwangju, Republic of Korea, 2021 – 2022

Section 1.
Compliance with
co-creation requirements

1.1 Does a forum exist?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Gwangju city has officially organized an OGP forum, called OGP public-private committee.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.2 Is the forum multi-stakeholder?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

It consists of the Innovation Communication Planning Office representing the government and nine related civil society organizations.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.3 Does the forum hold at least one meeting with civil society and non-governmental stakeholders during the co-creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The forum held two meetings.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.4 Has the action plan been endorsed by the stakeholders of the forum or steering committee/group?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

I was able to confirm it through the action plan and confirmation of forum members.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Section 2.
Recommended practices
in co-creation

2.1 Does the government maintain a Local OGP website or webpage on a government website where information on the OGP Local process (co-creation and implementation) is proactively published?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

I was able to search web pages through the search portal. And I checked that the information was updated periodically well.

https://barosotong.gwangju.go.kr/boardList.do?boardId=BD_0011&pageId=platform132

2.2 Did the government provide information to stakeholders in advance to facilitate informed and prepared participation in the co-creation process?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

I confirmed that the government used SNS to provide related information in advance to facilitate stakeholders’ informed and prepared participation in the co-creation process.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.3 Did the government ensure that any interested member of the public could make inputs into the action plan and observe or have access to decision-making documentation?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The government publicly received proposals from citizens to select the agenda for the action plan, and also collected citizens’ opinions on the agenda received. In addition, the government also conducted a period of receiving citizens’ opinions on the draft implementation plan.

https://barosotong.gwangju.go.kr/boardView.do?pageId=platform132&boardId=BD_0011&seq=5308510&movePage=2&searchTp=TM

https://barosotong.gwangju.go.kr/programList.do?customId=OGP&pageId=platform135

https://barosotong.gwangju.go.kr/boardView.do?pageId=platform133&boardId=BD_0012&seq=1048647&movePage=1

https://barosotong.gwangju.go.kr/agoraRView.do?pageId=platform109&seq=6881342&pageTp=V&orderBy=B&sort=D&listType=C&searchCtgry=agora01&searchTp=T

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.4 Did the government proactively report back or provide written feedback to stakeholders on how their contributions were considered during the creation of the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The government provided feedback to stakeholders through SNS and meeting materials.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.5 Was there an iterative dialogue and shared ownership between government and non-governmental stakeholders during the decision making process, including setting the agenda?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The opinions of non-governmental stakeholders were widely reflected throughout the decision-making process.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.6 Would you consider the forum to be inclusive and diverse?

Somewhat

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The forum consists of various environmental-related social organizations, but participation in social organizations by field such as education, culture, and welfare is insufficient.

Provide evidence for your answer:

Section 3. Initial evaluation of commitments

1. Commitment :

Building a Citizen-Friendly Energy Information Platform

1.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Unclear

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Quantification and quantification of achievement goals are required.
– e.g.) Education and promotion: 00 (0% of the population), 0 policy discussions, 0 policy development cases

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The relevance of citizen participation is clear.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The main content of the commitment is to gather opinions on citizens’ policies. It delivers the collected civic opinions to another public-private council so that they are to be policied but does not directly policy them.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

is a positive change to a process, practice or policy but will not generate a binding or institutionalized change across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

It conducts activities in which citizens’ opinions can be policied. However, there is no guarantee that the gathered voices will be institutionalized.

Provide evidence for your answer:

1.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

It is necessary to specify the achievement goals.
It is positive that milestones have been changed from two surveys to one policy debate and one survey.

2. Commitment :

Making Climate Change Management Policy with Citizens

2.1 Is the commitment verifiable?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

It is easy to verify how much platform construction has progressed.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.2 Does the commitment language/activities clearly justify relevance to OGP values?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Related to transparency, technology, and innovation

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.3 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

a continuation of ongoing practice in line with existing legislation, policies or requirements.

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

It is mainly about building a platform for information disclosure. It does not directly cause changes in existing systems and policies.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.4 Please select one option that best describes the commitment:

is a positive change to a process, practice or policy but will not generate a binding or institutionalized change across government or specific institution(s).

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

It promotes citizens’ energy saving through information sharing. However, it does not generate binding results.It promotes citizens’ energy saving through information sharing. However, it does not generate binding results.

Provide evidence for your answer:

2.5 Are there any recommended changes to the design of the commitment to help improve its implementation?

It would be nice if there was a process to reflect citizens’ opinions in building a platform.It would be nice if there was a process to reflect citizens’ opinions in building a platform.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership