Strengthen dialogue with the public in decision-making processes (LV0048)

3.1. Strengthening the representation of sectoral partners and maintaining a regular dialogue Ministries identify and improve their range of cooperation partners - civil society organizations, social partners, experts, industry representatives, as well as other organizations and individuals in the Ministry's areas of activity and target groups. Ministries define the ways in which they maintain a permanent dialogue with cooperation partners, which includes opportunities for participation in various formats of the ministry's work. Information on opportunities to participate in the work of the ministry is easily available. Interested NGOs and other members of the public can become partners and participate in the industry dialogue with the public without restriction

3.2. Effective and modern public participation approaches are used to develop balanced and high-quality decisions in every industry: (a) addressing the general public and different target groups; (b) enabling society itself to solve problems and discuss decisions jointly, including the use of innovative participatory approaches (co-creation, design thinking, hackathons 47 , think tanks, citizen consultations 48 , deliberative methods, think tanks, etc.); (c) informing the public about the implementation of their proposals; (d) participation in the digital environment (digitally organized dialogues on sectoral policy topics, online consultation, discussion platforms); (e) providing opportunities for public participation on the TAP portal; (f) proactively informing and explaining decisions to the public, involving industry experts, NGO and institutional communication specialists

3.3. Transparency and public involvement in the effective implementation, transparent and accountable monitoring of reforms and investments financed under the Recovery Fund Plan and the Cohesion Policy Program: a) Representatives of the public (associations, foundations, experts) shall be involved in the effective planning and implementation of the reforms or investments implemented under the Recovery Fund plan. They are also involved in information activities on the results of the implemented projects and their importance to society. The responsible institutions (depending on the field and specifics of the investment) are also invited to evaluate the involvement of associations and foundations in the implementation of the reform and investment and, if possible, to designate associations and foundations as project applicants; b) in line with the call made by Prime Minister AK Kariņš at the Memorandum Council meeting on 26 August 2021 49 to ensure a meaningful public hearing (associations and foundations working in the field) regarding support under the Cohesion Policy Program in the areas of institutional responsibility Identify associations and foundations (depending on the nature of the investment) as project applicants so that the activities of the Cohesion Policy Program can also be implemented by the NGO sector

3.4. Educational seminars for civil society on the possibilities of using the TAP portal

3.5. Development of a model of deliberative discussions, initial discussions and further development of deliberative forms

3.6. Establishment of an NGO classification by field of activity, which allows to identify organizations in different fields or organizations representing certain target groups

Action Plan Review

Commitment 3: Strengthen public representation and dialogue with the public in decision-making processes in all sectors

● Verifiable: Yes

● Does it have an open government lens? Yes

● This commitment has been clustered as: Meaningful and effective public participation in the development of balanced and high-quality decisions (Commitments 1 and 3)

● Potential for results: Substantial

Cluster 1 (Commitments 1 and 3): Meaningful and effective public participation in the development of balanced and high-quality decisions

State Chancellery, State Administration School, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Justice, Society Integration Fund,Cross-departmental Coordination Center, Civic Alliance, Providus

For a complete description of the commitment see Commitments 1 and 3 in Latvia’s 2022-2025 action plan: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/latvia-action-plan-2022-2025/

Context and objectives:

A 2021 OECD Government at a Glance Report revealed that Latvia’s citizens have low levels of trust in government and satisfaction with democracy. Only 29 per cent of citizens reported that the political system allows people like them to have a say in what the government does, compared to an OECD average of 41 per cent. [1] The action plan refers to a 2020 public opinion survey showing that only 18.5 per cent of citizens agree that their opinion matters when it comes to opportunities to influence developments in Latvia.

The action plan also explains that CSOs often do not have the capacity to participate regularly in decision-making, or there are not enough civil CSOs that are able to do so. Furthermore, the public administration does not fully understand the benefits of participation, therefore it remains insufficient and formalised around legal requirements and a narrow circle of cooperation partners. The action plan says public administration makes little to no use of innovative methods of participation.

During the co-creation process, citizens indicated that opportunities to engage in the decision-making process are limited. [2] A government representative also commented that civil society had previously criticised the format for dialogue and cooperation between civil society and government before the development of the action plan. [3] Furthermore, the government representative confirmed that the commitments would address the need to increase the circle of partners that institutions work with, engage civil society more in the planning process of COVID-19 recovery funds, and improve information to get a better picture of the civil society landscape in Latvia. [4]

Recent Latvian action plans have also included commitments that seek to improve public participation in decision-making. This cluster of commitments builds on the activities in the 2019-2021 action plan that saw substantial implementation developing guidelines on participation and launching the TAP participation portal. [5] The TAP portal publishes all information related to draft legal acts in one place and facilitates public participation in drafting legislation.

Commitment 1 and Commitment 3 include activities that would encourage changes to government actions to increase and improve engagement with citizens and civil society. The IRM has clustered these commitments together for this analysis. They contain 11 milestones, including developing a framework for civic dialogue (1.1), improving regulations on civic participation (1.2), providing training events and sharing good practice examples among public officials (1.3, 1.4), developing a digital platform containing information on public participation (1.5), strengthening regular dialogue with non-government partners (3.1), developing models of innovative participation methods and applying them (3.2, 3.5), ensuring transparency and public involvement in the dispersal of COVID-19 recovery funds (3.3), providing training for civil society on using government participation portals (3.4), and improving government identification of civil society partners (3.5). The commitment is clearly relevant to the OGP values of civic participation and access to information.

Potential for results: Substantial

Overall, this cluster of commitments has substantial potential for results. The implementation of the milestones would introduce positive structural changes to dialogue between government and civil society where this currently does not exist, encourage changes to public participation towards more innovative practices, engage civil society in the oversight of COVID-19 recovery fund investments, increase access to information on participation, and provide new opportunities for knowledge sharing.

Since there is currently no formalised framework for civil dialogue, the milestone to develop a structured and institutionalised civil dialogue framework (1.1) could substantially change civil society-government interactions. Implementation would provide a permanent and well-resourced mechanism for civil society to provide organised input directly to policy- and decision-makers. CSO representatives felt positively about prospects of introducing civil dialogue, [6] with one stating that it would elevate consultations with civil society to the same level as the current National Tripartite Cooperation Council consultations between government, employers and trade unions (‘social dialogue' [7]) where almost all major government initiatives are discussed. They explained that plans to elevate the status of the Memoranda Council between the government and civil society, and increase its resources, would help ensure that government institutions engage with (and perceive) civic dialogue at the same level as social dialogue.

The milestone to strengthen regular dialogue with non-government partners (3.1) would be achieved through standardising the rules around how government institutions engage with partners, according to a government representative. [8] Building on these standardised rules around participation, milestones 3.2 and 3.5 would lead to the publication of guidance and models of participation which would also lower the barriers to institutional understanding of innovative participation measures. A government representative stated that promoting them would help institutions understand why using modern methods for engagement is a good thing. [9] They also stated that by promoting these methods and examples (from home and abroad), they aim to encourage more resistant institutions to go beyond the legal participatory minimums such as undertaking public consultations on final drafts of policy, towards using deliberative or other innovative participatory mechanisms. Representatives from CSO Providus said that they would support promotion by organising at least two large-scale deliberative events. [10] They indicated that the introduction of deliberative mini-publics into decision-making should help tackle the priority of engaging Russian speakers and those with low incomes in particular, who are least likely to engage normally. [11] If implemented, this milestone would provide numerous examples of innovative participation methods being employed across institutions.

The classification of registered CSOs by fields of activity (1.6) would assist institutions to identify CSOs they have maybe not yet engaged with on relevant policy areas, and broaden their circle of partners to engage with during decision-making. At the moment, no such lists exist so institutions often engage more closely with CSOs with which they have already-established relationships.

Another milestone (3.3) would apply public engagement and transparency to the investments financed within the framework of Latvia’s COVID-19 recovery plan and EU cohesion policy funds. The results of this activity would help to address civil society criticisms about not being engaged in the process of identifying investments so far, according to a government representative. [12] They also confirmed that ministries participating in the dispersal of these funds are being encouraged by the State Chancellery to adopt more participatory measures. [13] A civil society representative stated that encouraging and supporting watchdog-type activities would help civil society to carry out this function. [14] At this point, they said, civic oversight of this kind of information on EU funding allocations is not well resourced, and therefore not systematic or easy to do, and is often limited to ad hoc investigations by journalists. The results of this activity could be substantial should implementation lead to more information being easily available and accessible, with civil society able to carry out a watchdog function, and with institutions interacting with them.

The milestones related to training events for public officials and civil society, and good practice for knowledge sharing (1.3, 1.4, 3.4) would help develop the knowledge and skills needed to support uptake of the mechanisms and participatory processes that the commitment envisages in state institutions. These activities would assist in the successful implementation of other milestones under Commitments 1 and 3, and support a culture of participation more broadly.

The transparency-related activities in this cluster (1.2, 1.5) would also improve current practices. On the one hand, the implementation of improvements to public participation regulations (Council of Ministers’ Rule 970 "Procedure for public participation in the development planning process") would ensure that institutions publish information in a uniform, consistent and effective manner. [15] Beyond this formal requirement, the commitment seeks to implement a digital platform to publish materials on public participation that would encourage and help sustain public officials’ knowledge and skills on public participation. Stakeholders have already identified the prototype from the Civic Alliance, State Chancellery and the European Economic Area Grants project called "Public Participation - The Key to Democratic Future” as the potential digital public participation platform. The site would be interactive and would include guidelines, other support tools, practical advice on participation and openness, and provide the public with the latest information on participation opportunities. It is not clear however, to what extent, if at all, this would be integrated or connected to the TAP portal.

Opportunities, challenges and recommendations during implementation

A government representative outlined the biggest foreseeable challenges to be resources and lack of institutional capacity to implement changes across institutions. [16] While most activities come under existing budgets, the launch and maintenance of the digital public platform would require additional funding from the state budget, particularly if it is developed as a standalone platform that is not integrated into existing websites. Activities to develop and encourage the uptake of innovative participation methods (3.1, 3.2) require additional funding from the state budget, so there could be limits to the extent and success of these actions. However, the government representative confirmed that the Society Integration Fund would fund the activities establishing a civic dialogue mechanism. [17]

While some milestones of the commitments are specific and clear, other milestones set out broader aims with less concrete objectives that can be measured. While this is to be expected given the four-year timeframe for this action plan, and offers flexibility to enhance the impact of implementation, it also carries the risk of losing focus. The implementing institutions, partners and multi-stakeholder forum should maintain regular dialogue and monitoring of these commitments, including a mid-point implementation check-in to ensure that the action plan and implementation of commitments are on track.

• Develop contingencies for non-funded activities to ensure they can be implemented. The government and members of the multi-stakeholder forum need to be aware of which activities are least likely to secure funding, and what measures could be taken to ensure that the implementation of the commitment is not totally lost. This may require European Union funding mechanisms and conversations with donor organisations where funding would be primarily for civil society-led activities. Where funding is not available, implementing institutions and organisations would need to try to integrate activities within already existing activities – for example, publishing information on pre-existing websites rather than on new online platforms. For example, informative material on public participation could be more effective if it is linked and published through the TAP portal, rather than through an unlinked or separate website. The funding question also means that institutions seeking to engage the public in innovative ways should ensure that the input of the public in this way is integrated into decision-making, rather than conducted as a tick-box exercise.
• Publish information on civic dialogue, rules and guidance for institutions about public participation, and classifications of CSOs by field of activity. Ensuring transparency is embedded as a core feature of these different milestones would help to increase trust in the efforts of government institutions to engage relevant civil society actors and citizens. Furthermore, it would help ensure that people can understand those interactions happening at the level of civic dialogue (publishing minutes of meetings, or materials produced and used during civic dialogue). It would also help citizens understand in what ways they could engage in innovative models of participation, and facilitiate oversight of them. Where relevant, such information should be easily and publicly available on existing platforms, in easy-to-understand and accessible language (in Latvian and Russian).
• Develop training in collaboration with civil society and integrate events so they are complementary to ongoing actions. Ensure that various trainings and events for public officials are complementary to activities taking place in their jurisdictions, and encourage ongoing actions rather than one-off events. Integrate civil society into the design and delivery of these events.
• Create a regular check-in moment with institutions to ensure they are continuing to implement innovative participation mechanisms. The planned events for knowledge sharing could also include an accountability or feedback element which would include information on the actions being taken by institutions to engage the public. A check-in moment could also be drawn from regular or annual reporting up to the State Chancellery on participatory actions being taken (or taken over the past 12 months), and information being published about such actions that could encourage institutions that are not carrying out such innovative participative measures to do so.