Establishment of Multi-Stakeholder Forum (IT0073)

What is the problem that the commitment will address? Given the advances in the national context, but also the weaknesses highlighted by the IRM and the new OGP standards adopted in November 2021, the problem addressed is that of the absence of a forum for equal confrontation between government and citizens to implement shared choices, consistent with open government principles.

What is the commitment? The objective is to set up a Multistakeholder Forum as a qualified actor to define the National Action Plans and the National Strategy for Open Government. The commitment implies the constitution of a team of referents responsible for defining the activities to be carried out in order to achieve the constitution of the MSF. The expected outcomes are 1. The approval of a "National Regulation of the Multistakeholder Forum for Open 13 Government", which establishes the ways of entry and participation, starting from the minimum standards provided by OGP, 2. The establishment of the first Multistakeholder Forum for Open Government, 3. The definition by the MSF of the first national strategy for open government.

How will the commitment contribute to solving the problem? Through a more advanced application of the OGP's minimum standards and agreement on clear rules for ● A fair and transparent membership selection process that ensures inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders ● The definition of accountability and reporting mechanisms ● The identification of operating and decision-making procedures. The FMS will be able to provide a platform, currently lacking, for peer-to-peer debate and the definition of national policies for open government.

Why is this commitment relevant to OGP values? Because it will create a more favorable environment for fair and equal confrontation between the government and civil society, increasing the possibility for civil society to participate in and influence public decisions. As inclusive, it will help encourage the participation of underrepresented groups in public decision-making processes, such as women, youth, people with disabilities, and all minorities in general. It will enable the development of an effective national strategy for open government.

Additional information The MSF will be able to be a more structured and authoritative national reference actor than the current OG Forum for the definition of shared proposals for the implementation and monitoring of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. The MSF for OG will also be able to establish a dialogue with the Multistakeholder Forum for Sustainable Development for the exchange of best practices and lessons learned.

Activities Activities Start date End date Establishment of a team of contact persons responsible for engagement, composed of at least two public administrations, with experience in managing national stakeholder forums, and two interested civil society organizations 1st March 2022 15th March 2022 Reasoned mapping by interest/competencies of all actors in the field to verify the inclusion of all strategic stakeholders. With regard to gender equality and youth representation in the 15th March 2022 15th May 2022 14 Forum, the team responsible for commitment 1.01 will collaborate with the teams of the action 4 in charge of making proposals in this domain Verification of alignment between the discussed/collected proposals and the new OGP standards and development of a draft proposal for advanced national rules consistent with the national context 15th March 2022 15th May 2022 Consultation on the draft rules proposal involving all OGP Italy participants 15th May 2022 15th June 2022 Text revision based on the outcome of the consultation and final approval 15th June 2022 15th July 2022 Establishment of the Multi-stakeholder Forum Within 31st July 2022 Start of the co-creation process of the national OG strategy by the Multistakeholder Forum 1st September 2022 Public consultation on the strategy’s contents 1st May 2023 30th May 2023 Strategy approval 30th June 2023

Action Plan Review

Commitment 1.01: Multistakeholder forum and open government national strategy

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● This commitment is clustered as: Cluster 1 – Governance and strategy for open government (Commitment 1.01, milestones 1 and 2 of Commitment 4.01, and Commitment 4.02)

● Potential for results: Modest

Commitment 1.01, milestones one and two of Commitment 4.01, and Commitment 4.02: Governance and strategy for open government

Presidency of the Council of Ministers – Department for Public Administration (DFP) and Department for Equal Opportunities (DPO), Ministry of Ecological Transition (MITE); Conference of Regions – Liguria Region; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFA); The Good Lobby; Orizzonti Politici; Impegno Donna Association; Fondazione Sodalidas; Period Think Tank; Save the Children [1]

For a complete description of the commitments included in this cluster see Commitments 1.01, 4.01 and 4.02 in Italy’s 2022-2023 Action Plan (original and amended versions): https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/italy-action-plan-2021-2023-december/

Context and objectives:

This commitment cluster seeks to establish a multi-stakeholder forum (MSF) to steer the definition of national OGP action plans and of a national strategy for open government (1.01). Particular attention will be placed on ensuring representation and fostering opportunities for dialogue with women (4.01) and youth (4.02). As it seeks to improve participatory mechanisms for the public, including underrepresented groups, the commitment is relevant to the OGP value of civic participation.

The cluster directly stems from the priorities of civil society. Established in 2016 to support the drafting of the third national action plan, the current OGP national forum only involves CSO representatives. [2] During the co-creation process for the fifth plan, civil society criticized the limited involvement in and the limited transparency of the implementation of the previous action plan (especially during the COVID-19 pandemic). [3] From this emerged the need for a more structured forum for exchanges between civil society and public administrations. [4]

Potential for results: Modest

This cluster has a modest potential for results. The establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum involving both public administration and civil society representatives would overcome the limitations to the current conformation of the Open Government Forum (OGF) in terms of establishing an institutionalized OGP governance tool where public administration and CSOs have equal standing. This analysis, however, focuses on the potential for results in developing a national open government strategy, as the actions pertaining to the multi-stakeholder forum for the OGP process are basic expectations of participating in OGP.

The national strategy for open government will be the first of its kind in Italy and could be a key step toward advancing open government policy in the country. The expected objectives are currently being developed, and include: promoting civic participation toward inclusive public policies; reinforcing transparency by promoting public policies that are open to civic monitoring and seek to prevent conflicts of interest, promoting government accountability and integrity; inclusive digital innovation, with public policies promoting digital citizenship and enhancing high-quality and effective services; and lastly simplification of norms and procedures to expand and protect the civic space and further protect citizens’ rights. [5] Interviews confirmed that the new MSF would co-create the strategy in coordination and interaction with the OGP Community, and place it under public consultation before its approval to ensure a participatory approach to its development. [6] The strategy would define the underlying, long-term policy objectives in open government, to which specific activities in the action plans would be linked. The amended version of the action plan has been updated to highlight that, following the creation of the MSF, the responsibility for the definition of the national strategy would fall under the remit of the DFP as lead implementing actor [7].

Although it responds to the minimum requirements of the OGP process, the creation of an MSF would institutionalize cooperation between public administration and civil society and provide a positive opportunity more broadly, to influence a national strategic framework for open government in Italy. An MSF creates a structured mechanism to empower civil society, placing them at equal level with public administration, and creates a continuous and open channel of communication on issues beyond the OGP process. Lessons learned would be drawn from the functioning of the national MSF for sustainable development, managed by the MITE (which is also indicated as a reference administration for Commitment 1.01), but a CSO representative highlighted that the process, structure, and terminology for the MSF is not totally clear even as implementation progresses. [8] A government representative said this approach was deliberate so that those involved directly in developing the MSF could determine their parameters. [9] The activities aimed at fostering the participation of women and youth respond to OGP’s broader calls for increasing women’s voices in open government, [10] and fill gaps in the representativeness of the current OGF, where there is no youth representation. [11] Active engagement of women is also foreseen through the future interaction between the MSF and the recently set up National Observatory for the integration of gender equality policies. [12] These activities are aligned with cross-cutting priorities on women and youth as presented in the PNRR. [13]

In terms of the structure of the MSF, the current OGF would evolve into a broader “OGP Community” and the MSF would become a governance tool, similar to a Steering Committee. [14] Ongoing discussions center around the participation of a maximum of 11 CSO representatives and 11 representatives of public administrations. [15] A government representative confirmed that the MSF would have a mandate of two years, in line with the duration of national action plans. It would also go beyond minimum requirements of the OGP process by having rules of engagement defined through a participatory process, a fair and transparent membership selection process, defined accountability and reporting mechanisms, and clear operating and decision-making procedures. The interviewee confirmed, however, that the commitment as written does not foresee permanent high-level political participation. [16]

Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations during implementation

If successfully implemented, this commitment can represent a considerable step forward in the way open government is approached in Italy. One possible risk affecting implementation is the level of commitment of the parties involved. A representative of the OGP Task Force highlighted that the number of CSOs actively involved has already decreased during the implementation phase from those who originally signed up during the design process. [17] A representative from civil society highlighted that the limited involvement is related to capacity issues for smaller organizations, as well as the high level of commitment required for participating in the process (e.g. several frequent meetings). The interviewee further highlighted that limited high-level political support could have an impact on the relevance of the MSF as well as on the strategy itself. [18] 

Another possible risk is the lack of clarity among interested parties on the governance structure, including whether and how the new MSF will replace the current OGF, and the relationship between the MSF and the “new” OGP community. This may lead to greater confusion within civil society and result in lower participation.

To maximize the impact of this commitment, and mitigate the possible risks outlined above, the IRM recommends the following:

• Draw inspiration from international experiences in defining the national strategy. The OECD provides guidance on how to design an open government strategy, as well as key considerations to keep in mind for successful open government initiatives. [19] The MSF could also consider implementing a mapping exercise to learn from the experience of developing and implementing national open government strategies in other countries. Finland’s open government strategy sets out a long-term vision and key priorities, guiding the implementation of action plans but also the application of open government principles in the daily work of the public administration. [20] Tunisia is developing a national strategy for open government with civil society that would identify indicators, set priorities, and align efforts for long-term open government reforms. [21] Argentina’s open government strategy goes beyond the national level and seeks to coordinate regional and local open government policies as well, strengthening the creation of such policies where they do not yet exist. [22] The strategy would benefit from being open to periodic amendments and not being too prescriptive or narrow in scope.
• Ensure clear and transparent governance structures and working mechanisms to ensure quality and transparency of process, guarantee its effective functioning, and clarity on the role of the MSF vis-à-vis the OGP community and vice versa, as well as what their respective responsibilities and tasks are. As stakeholders work on establishing governance structures and working mechanisms, they need to ensure clear rules and processes are in place and publicly accessible, defining how membership in the MSF works and whether and how CSOs can apply to participate. Mechanisms should be in place to guarantee an inclusive approach to participation, taking into consideration the significant time commitment that might be required from CSOs to take part in the MSF and how this might represent a barrier to participation for smaller actors with fewer resources. Members of the MSF could consider setting up a functional review moment after one year of implementation to discuss possible challenges and best practices and redefine the regulations as required.
• To guarantee equality of representation and powers between public administration and civil society ensure civil society has the power to convene the MSF and set the agenda. This can include convening the MSF for ad-hoc moments of dialogue beyond regularly scheduled sessions. This can further empower civil society and contribute to the establishment of an open channel of communication and exchange that can be tapped into if specific developments take place that are particularly relevant to the open government context.

Results Report

Commitment 1.01. Multistakeholder forum and open government national strategy

This commitment sought to establish a multistakeholder forum (MSF) to steer the definition of OGP national action plans and the National Strategy for Open Government. Along with Commitments 4.01 and 4.02, it included a specific focus on ensuring representation and fostering opportunities for dialogue with women and youth. The inclusion of this commitment in the action plan stemmed from the priorities of CSOs who had voiced the need for a more structured forum for exchanges between PAs and CSOs both in the design and implementation of action plans.

The MSF became operational in July 2022. Its remit and governance structure, enshrined in the MSF Regulations, were developed jointly by CSOs and PAs. [1] Draft Regulations were published on the ParteciPA public consultation platform from 16 May 2022 to 15 June 2022. [2] Once the consultation period concluded, the regulations were formally adopted and published on the national OGP website. [3] The MSF is composed of 11 representatives of each side, with an elected spokesperson each. Participation is voluntary and is not remunerated. A stakeholder indicated that the size of the MSF, combined with the agreed-upon rule of decision-making by unanimity, sometimes made its work challenging. [4] Sub-working groups were established to address this. A revision of the regulations, specifically the unanimity rule, is also expected to be introduced in the following action plan cycle. [5]

The MSF has a mandate of maximum two years, in line with the duration of national action plans, and is expected to meet on a bimonthly basis [6] and report on a quarterly schedule to the OGP Italy Community during its plenary meetings. Meetings are convened by the Public Administration Department at the initiative of a PA or CSO spokesperson. The list of MSF members is publicly available on the national OGP website. [7] Since its establishment, the MSF met eight times during the implementation of the fifth action plan and once following its completion in January 2024. Minutes of all meetings are available online [8] and regular reporting on the MSF work was provided in the five interim reports used to monitor overall progress of action plan implementation. [9] Civil society stakeholders noted while the increased frequency of meeting was welcome, the intensive workload represented a barrier for participation towards smaller CSOs with less resources. To partially address this issue, the Public Administration Department covered relevant travel expenses for CSOs based outside Rome. [10] Civil society stakeholders also regretted that the opportunity for CSOs to set meeting agendas remained limited and that the approach was often too burdensome and bureaucratic, reflecting similarities with the way PAs work rather than a new joint way of working with civil society.

The draft National Strategy for Open Government was developed by members of the MSF and presented during the plenary meeting of the OGP Italy Community on 29 September 2023. It was placed on public consultation on the ParteciPA platform between 13 October and 12 November 2023. [11] Members of the OGP Italy Community were directly invited via email (300 addresses contacted) to fill out a 15-question questionnaire with the goal of gathering suggestions on the main priorities and objectives of the strategy. Twenty-nine responses were received, the vast majority of which belonging to respondents who form part of the OGP Italy Community (more than 80%) and experts in the field of participation, inclusive digital transformation, and anti-corruption (more than 60%). [12] One stakeholder highlighted the cumbersome process required to participate in the consultation process, which requests users to log into the ParteciPA platform via their electronic ID number (SPID), as one of the factors that hindered a higher engagement rate. [13] Results of the public consultation indicated alignment between the values and priorities presented in the draft strategy and provided additional indications on possible objectives to support the achievement of these priorities. [14] Furthermore, an MSF representative said the development of the strategy could have benefited from broader involvement of civil society in its early stages. [15] Stakeholder contributions were being analyzed by the OGP Task Force and were to be passed on to the MSF for integration in the final version of the strategy between January and February 2024. Suggestions which might not be integrated in the strategy will be assessed by the MSF as possible commitments to be included in the sixth action plan. [16] The current draft includes five strategic priorities, [17] in line with the five strategic goals identified by the broader OGP Strategy 2023–2028. [18]

For activities related to fostering opportunities for dialogue with women and youth, completion is more limited. Stakeholders attributed this in part to the limits imposed by the MSF Regulations that organizations must have at least one year of prior experience working within the OGP domain to participate. [19] See Commitments 4.01 and 4.02 for further analyses.

The National Strategy for Open Government represents a first for Italy, and once published it can further support the momentum for change across all levels of government. The draft strategy includes the application of open government principles to monitor the use of PNRR funds as a key priority, which is in line with CSO recommendations and carries strategic value in the national context. [20]

As identified during the Action Plan Review, [21] interviewees confirmed that limited high-level political support for the domestic OGP process remains a concern that could potentially limit progress in the long term, especially in relation to the effectiveness of the strategy. [22] The level of commitment among parties involved in the MSF varied, sometimes depending on the personalities of the individual representatives and in other cases affected by internal turnover (both in increasing and diminishing engagement). [23] Some civil society stakeholders further indicated that there was confusion as to the difference between the MSF and the OGP Community, especially in the early stages, [24] and that more systematic involvement of the community during implementation would be desirable. [25]