Informal Economy Participants (PNG0004)

Status quo or problem addressed by the commitment: Although 85% of the population is employed in the informal economy, there is lack of sufficient recognition by government, hence, establishing a voice mechanism such as a network of vendor associations is critical due to lack of communication and understanding between city councils/authorities and the sector participants. Studies undertaken by CIMC in 1999 and by the National Research Institute (NRI) in 2001 on the constraints to informal economy in urban and rural areas indicated that although informal economy including agriculture contribute about 23% to the GDP, it continues to be marginalized by government. Informal economy in PNG is seen with a lot of skepticism and tainted with negative perception by government and the public. There is absence of a grievance mechanism or governance process to provide opportunities for participants to channel their concerns relating to maintaining health and safety standards, environment protection, accessing government support for micro level businesses, understanding and working within laws of the land, consumer protection and others.; Main objective: The National Informal Economy Policy Framework 2011-2015 and the National Informal Sector Development & Control Act, ! 2004 clearly call for Government to provide avenues for dialogue I with informal economy participants on issues and concerns affecting them. However, at present these aspirations are not fulfilled both at national and sub-national levels. Therefore, the proposed Voice mechanism for Informal Economy aims to: 1. Develop Economy a National participants. Strategy to give "voice" to Informal Economy participants.; Brief description of commitment: The main objective described above is to create communication I networks, associations and coalitions for participants to express their concerns. Similarly, relevant state entities including city authorities should recognize the mechanism as an important tool I for inclusive development. It would further strengthen sector coordination; enhance capacity, increase participants production and income levels.; OGP grand challenge addressed by the commitment: OGP Grand Challenges: 2 and 4 (increasing public integrity and creating safer communities).; Relevance: Briefly describe the way in which this commitment is relevant to further advancing OGP values of access to information, public accountability, civic participation, and technology and innovation for openness and accountability. (A detailed description of these values is available in the OGP Values Guidance Note.): This commitment is relevant to OGP values of: 1. Civic Space 2. Open Government, and 3. Public Accountability. It gives informal economy participants the opportunity to shape and projected take and ownership heard. of It policies capacitates that them provide to for their demand voice for to their be I needs to be met by Government at various levels.; Ambition: Briefly describe the intended results of the commitment and how it will either make government more open or improve government through more openness.: The intended results are two pronged: (1)Informal Economy: • Government being more open and receptive to concerns raised by informal economy participants; • Informal economy participants are organized and have access to information and assistance; (2)Government: • Improvement in compliance to health standards; • Improvement to law and order situation; • Development of SME Sector; • Government is transparent in management and delivery of public resources & services to informal economy participants.

4. Giving “Voice” to Informal Economy Participants

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to Open Government: Yes

Potential impact: Minor

Completion: Limited

Commitment 4: Giving “Voice” to Informal Economy Participants

Aim of the commitment

This commitment aimed to institute the Informal Economy Voice Strategy, to offer a mechanism for dialogue between the government and informal economy participants. [17] It intended to pilot the strategy through dialogue platforms in five provinces. By January 2018, preceding the action plan, the Informal Economy Voice Strategy had been developed by a technical working committee chaired by the National Capital District Commission. [18]

As of 2017, Papua New Guinea’s informal economic sector included almost 80% of the population, [19] making it the country’s largest sector in terms of employment. [20] Participants in the sector faced challenges in terms of financial support, human resource development, health and hygiene, and law and order. ^[21] Although the sector was legally recognized under the National Informal Sector Development and Control Act 2004, [22] the law was not popular in the provinces [23] and most informal sector participants were not aware of their rights. The law called on government to provide avenues for dialogue with informal sector participants on issues affecting them. [24] In the absence of this dialogue, the government did not provide sufficient support to the sector.

This commitment had minor potential impact to improve public participation within the informal economy. If instituted, the strategy could have promoted informal economy participants’ involvement in government decision-making affecting their sector. Previous efforts to promote dialogue and participation had not proved effective, even with the existence of legislation, and the commitment did not entail awareness efforts, crucial to engage the sector in prospective implementation of the policy.

Did it open government?

Did not change

By January 2022, the Informal Economy Voice Strategy had not been finalized, and piloting efforts had consequently not started. [25] Over the course of 2021, four subnational consultation workshops were conducted to gather feedback on the Informal Economy Voice Strategy from government, CSOs, and private sector stakeholders. These consultations had been delayed by COVID-19 restrictions. [26] The Consultative Implementation and Monitoring Council, the lead implementing CSO for this commitment, reported that changes within the lead implementing agency’s management delayed finalization of the strategy. By 2022, validations across the country had been completed, which precede finalization of the strategy. [27] According to the Council, the Inter-Agency Voice Mechanism Advisory Committee that had existed prior to the implementation period was still in place, but had not broadened its scope as planned by the commitment. [28] As this commitment is carried forward, the IRM recommends active involvement of the Department of Provincial and Local Level Government and the Investment Promotion Authority.