Presentation by Helena Braun, Advisor of Better Regulation Legislative Policy Department, Ministry of Justice, Estonia, at the 7th Expert Meeting on Measuring Regulatory Performance: Embedding Regulatory Policy in Law and Practice, Breakout session 2, Reykjavik, 18-19 June 2015. Further information is available at http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/measuring-regulatory-performance.htm

1. Public Engagement in Estonia –
lessons learnt and way forward
18.06.2015

2. 1. Overview of the Public Engagement System in Estonia
2. Achievements and drawbacks in Public Engagement Practice

3. Road to systematic public engagement
in Estonia

4. 4
2001
2012
2011
2007
2000 Public Information Act
Today I Decide
e-Participation Webpage osale.ee
Information System for
Draft Acts
Adoption of:
- Renewed rules of the Government of the Republic;
- Renewed rules of legislative drafting;
- Impact Assessment Guidelines;
- New Version of Code of Good Engagement Practices
2001 Strategy on Estonian Third Sector Development (STSD)
2005Code of Good Engagement Practices
Action Plan 2004-2006 for
implementatino of STSD
2004
Estonia joins the
Open Government Partnership
2015
2012
2007 Estonian Better Regulation Programme
2011 Guidelines for Development of Legislative Policy until 2018
Coalition Agreement 2015-2019 2015
(autumn)
Renewed Better Regulation Programme
2002eRT – official publication portal
of Estonian regulations

5. Areas of application of public engagement rules
• Legislative intents;
• Drafts of laws and their amendments;
• Drafts of secondary regulations;
• Drafts of development plans, strategies of the state;
• EU draft legislation and other strategic documents;
• Conventions and international agreements, as well as the documents
that are worked out within their framework, and that influence the
society;
• Ex-post evaluations (no practical examples yet)
Main focus of the
presentation

6. PREPARATION OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
(since 2012)
• PROBLEM  OBJECTIVE  PREFERRED POLICY CHOICE
• PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT - IMPACTS AND THEIR
SIGNIFICANCE
• PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
CONSULTATION AND
COORDINATION OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
• min 4 WEEKS OF CONSULTATION
• ALL RELEVANT MINISTRIES MUST CHECK ENGAGEMENT
PLANS AND ESTIMATED IMPACTS IN THEIR FIELD OF
COMPETENCE
• MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CHECKS THE OVERALL QUALITY
•ALL COMMENTS BY MINISTRIES ARE PUBLIC
PREPARATION OF
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
• IN-DEPTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
• PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
• PLAN OF EX-POST RIA
CONSULTATION
• min 4 WEEKS OF CONSULTATION
• FEEDBACK TO CONSULTATION
All formal
stages of
policy cycle
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

7. INTER-MINISTERIAL
COORDINATION
• ALL MINISTRIES MUST CHECK
ENGAGEMENT AND IMPACTS IN THEIR
FIELD OF COMPETENCE
• MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CHECKS THE
OVERALL QUALITY
•ALL COMMENTS BY MINISTRIES ARE
PUBLIC
GOVERNMENT ENDORSES
PARLIAMENT
RIIGIKOGU DECIDES
EX-POST RIA
(since 2012)
•PRESENTED TO THE PARLIAMENT, THE
STAKEHOLDERS AND THE MINISTRY OF
JUSTICE
All formal
stages of
policy cycle
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

8. • Proportionality – more significant the impact, deeper and wider the
engagement;
• Flexibility in terms of means and scope;
• Minimum requirement for all acts – publication in Information
System for Draft Acts;
• Sufficient time for comments (by rule, min 4 weeks);
• Adequate feedback (by rule, max within 30 days);
• Obligatory summary of consultation results for decision-makers;
• Analysis of the conduct of engagement (attainment of the goal,
relevance of the used methods, participation of interest groups in
consultation, efficiency of providing feedback and satisfaction of
interest groups with the engagement).
Principles of public engagement

9. Development and coordination
• Strategy Unit, Government Office
• Responsibilities:
• Enforcement of the Code of Public Engagement;
• Assistance to ministries (trainings, guidelines, explanatory materials);
• Network of Public Engagement Coordinators of ministries;
• Analysis of the conduct of engagement;
• Open Government Partnership
Day-to-day quality control
• Public
• All ministries
• Special responsibility on Ministry of Justice - RIA quality control body

10. Public Engagement in practice –
achievements and drawbacks

11. Evaluation of Public Engagement in Estonia
• 2004 – Engagement into Public Decision-Making
• 2010 – Analysis of Public Engagement Practices of Government
Institutions
• 2013 – Self-Assessment Report of Estonia's Open Government
Partnership (OGP)
• 2013 – Independent report on OGP implementation in Estonia
• 2013 – Independent Analysis of Engagement Practices with regard
to Environmental Regulation
• 2014 – Preparations for OGP Action Plan 2014-2016

12. Achievements
• Small, open, transparent Government, horizontal approach;
• Engagement system in place;
• Many very good examples of engagement;
• E-solutions;
• Extensive public engagement capacity building programme for both
public sector and stakeholders;
• Open Government Partnership – engagement focus + high level
cooperation between Government and stakeholders;
• Action on the basis of evaluation results;
• Increased awareness of the benefits of public engagement in
different levels

13. Stakeholders
Problem 1: Timing
• Ministries do not consult early
enough in the process
• There is not enough time left
for comments
• Introduction of legislative intent
Challenges:
 In 2014 only in 19% of the cases a legislative draft was preceded by a
legislative intent. Speedy law-making has continued.
Plans in 2015 BR Programme:
 Requirement of early political validation
 Changes to rules on exceptions
 Obligatory engagement plan
• Minimum requirement for time established
Challenge:
 Rules are too flexible
 Connected to communication problem

14. Stakeholders
Problem 2: Formalism
• Biggest motivation killer for
stakeholders
• Also related to timing –
consulting too late
• Training, awareness building
• Culture change
• More formal steps in the process
(legislative intent)

15. Stakeholders
Problem 3: Communication
• Unclear: What exactly do you
want an opinion on? Which of
these plans should affect me?
• Unclear: How does the decision
making process work? In which
stages can I step in?
• E-tools not well integrated and
not user friendly enough
• Focus of training courses – targeted
communication, clear language
OGP 2014-2016 + BR Programme draft:
• Visualisation following Finnish example
http://lainvalmistelu.finlex.fi/ ;
• Improvement of work plans
OGP priority for 2014-2016:
• Integration of www.osale.ee and e-system for
drafts;
• Increase user friendliness and activeness

16. Stakeholders
Problem 4: Feedback
• Feedback is too formalistic and
passive, often only in annex to
the draft;
• Not clear what purpose the
comments served
• OGP Action Plan 2014-2016:
- Improving feedback quality is a
priority;
- Substantive feedback document
obligatory
• Focus of public engagement
training courses

17. Stakeholders
Problem 5: Preparation for being engaged
• Stakeholders passive
• Not enough capacity and
skills for proper
participation
• Training (awareness+skills)
• OGP Action plan 2014-2016
- Priority;
- Funds for capacity
building programmes

18. Public sector
Problem 1: Regulatory framework
•Rules too soft and too
general;
•No rules on lobbying
•Currently no plans for
detailed regulation;
•OGP + renewed BR
Programme

19. Public sector
Problem 2: Planning and clear focus
• Public engagement training
focus;
• Renewed BR Programme 
consultation plans together with
legislative intent

20. Public sector
Problem 3: Analysis of the conduct of engagement
• No systematic case-by-case
collection and analysis of data;
• Existing analysis mainly on the
usefulness not on engagement
satisfaction
• Insufficient central coordination
– differences between
ministries
• No concrete plans for solving
these issues
• Plan to strengthen central
coordination + the role of
engagement coordinators

21. Thank you for your attention!
Helena Braun
Advisor of Regulatory Impact Assessment
Legislative Quality Division, Legislative Policy Department
Estonian Ministry of Justice
helena.braun@just.ee