Strategic and institutional set-up for transparency

A body(ies) is responsible for promoting access to information

Review of the institutional documents (organigrams, rules creating or governing the function of public bodies etc.) and policy and strategic documents. Interviews with relevant government officials and stakeholders. It is verified there is one or several executive bodies within the government in charge of policy design, co-ordination, steering and monitoring of access to public information. The existence of an oversight body (e.g., an information commissioner) does not fulfil the criterion, a body in charge of implementation is also required. The criterion is not fulfilled if there are no central bodies in charge of policy design, co-ordination, steering and monitoring but each line ministry or executive agency develops their own objectives without general co-ordination.

A body(ies) is responsible for promoting open data

Review of the institutional documents (organigrams, rules creating or governing the function of public bodies etc.) and policy and strategic documents. Interviews with relevant government officials and stakeholders. It is verified there is one or several executive bodies within the government in charge of policy design, co-ordination, steering and monitoring of open data. The existence of an oversight body (e.g., an information commissioner) does not fulfil the criterion, a body in charge of implementation is also required. The criterion is not fulfilled if there are no central bodies in charge of policy design, coordination, steering and monitoring but each line ministry or executive agency develops their own objectives without general co-ordination.

A body(ies) is responsible for promoting the re-use of data

Analysis of the institutional documents (organigrams, rules creating or governing the function of public bodies etc.) and policy and strategic documents. Interviews with relevant government officials and stakeholders. It is verified there is one or several executive bodies within the government in charge of policy design, co-ordination, steering and monitoring of re-use of data. The existence of an oversight body (e.g., an information commissioner) does not fulfil the criterion, a body in charge of implementation is also required. The criterion is not fulfilled if there are no central bodies in charge of policy design, co-ordination, steering and monitoring but each line ministry or executive agency develops their own objectives without general co-ordination.

A strategy(ies) is in force with objectives to enhance transparency in the public sector

Review of the government adopted planning document(s) to verify they cover transparency objectives. For this purpose, enhancing transparency means objectives to enhance access to information, open government and proactive publication of documents and re-use of data. To be considered “covered”, the area must be a clearly identifiable part of the planning documents (e.g., either a separate strategy or similar document, a chapter or sub-chapter or similar section) that: 1) analyses the existing situation; 2) sets objectives; and 3) identifies specific reform activities.

Reported implementation rate of transparency activities (%)

Review of planning documents and reports. The reported implementation rate is calculated based on the planned actions of all action plans of all valid planning documents that comprise the access to public information, open government and proactive publication of documents and re-use of data during the last full calendar year. If there is no information on implementation of the action plan(s) of one or more strategies comprising this area, it is assumed that the activities planned for the reporting year have not been implemented from the list of all planned activities of all strategies. Points are allocated based on the reported implementation rate of activities regarding access to information (x): • x < 25% = 0 points. • 25% ≤ x < 90% = linear function • x ≥ 90% = 4 points.