PUBLIC-PRIVATE DIALOGUE (PPD) QUALITY TRACKING PPD QUALITY TRACKING SYSTEM DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
USAID GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA
14 November 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE DIALOGUE (PPD) QUALITY TRACKING PPD QUALITY TRACKING SYSTEM DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY; PUBLIC DISCUSSION
USAID GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA CONTRACT NUMBER: AID-114-C-14-00007 DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP USAID | GEORGIA USAID CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE: REVAZ ORMOTSADZE AUTHOR(S): INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (IDFI) PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY STRENGTHENING COMPONENT: 5500 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
14 NOVEMBER 2015
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
i
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Deloitte Consulting LLP. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
DATA Reviewed by: Milo Stevanovich; Malkhaz Nikolashvili Project Component: Support Public Private Dialogue Component; Private Sector And Civil Society Capacity Strengthening Component Practice Area: Public Private Dialogue Quality Tracking Key Words: PPD, Quality Tracking, Methodology
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
ii
ACRONYMS G4G
Governing for Growth in Georgia
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
PPD
Public-Private Dialogue
IDFI
Institute for Development of Freedom of Information
OECD
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
EU
European Union
GoG
Government of Georgia
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
RIA
Regulatory Impact Assessment
CSO
Civil Society Organization
FOI
Freedom of Information
TV
Television
E-mail
Electronic mail
GELPO
Georgian Law and Policy Centre
EPRC
Economic Policy Research Centre
AmCham
American Chamber of Commerce in Georgia
ISET
International School of Economics
GGI
Good Governance Initiative
ICCA
Infrastructure Construction Companies Association
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
iii
CONTENTS 1.
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.
ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................... 6
APPENDIX 1 - GUIDED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS................................ 9
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
iv
1. SUMMARY Within the framework of the first milestone IDFI had the following activities to perform:
PPD Quality Tracking System Design and Methodology Report produced;
Public discussion arranged.
As a result of the milestone activities the project team has prepared draft methodology for PPD quality tracking and a guided questionnaire for interviews. It should be highlighted that the methodology and questionnaire was updated following the comments from G4G stakeholders as well as participants of the public discussion. Another important activity conducted during the milestone implementation period was organizing a public discussion. The event was held on the 13th of November and aimed at presenting the project, its goals and draft methodology to the relevant stakeholders. Representatives of think tanks working on economic issues, the Government, public sector as well as international donor organizations (11 different organizations in total not including G4G and IDFI) were present at the discussion. The discussion was crucial for the final outcome of the project since it enabled the representatives of the target audience to get acquainted with the draft methodology of evaluating existing practice of public-private dialogue in Georgia. Active discussion was held on the topic of existing problems faced by the representatives of private sector as well as the government itself in the process of public-private dialogue. Probable solutions to the problems were also suggested. The team of the project received important feedback on the further improvement of the draft methodology. While working on the methodology and the Quality Tracking System the project team has used such sources as The PPD Handbook (Benjamin Herzberg and Andrew Wright), Introductory Handbook for Undertaking Regulatory Impact Analysis (OECD), Regulatory Impact Assessment (Association of Young Economists of Georgia), EU Guidelines for Impact Analysis etc. Importantly, during the milestone the project met with G4G representatives on a regular basis, discussing the goals of the project, possible ways to prepare and implement PPD Quality Tracking System Design, methodology and questionnaire, discussing on Relevant criteria for evaluating extent and quality of PPD systems as well as covering possible risks and challenges of the project. The regular meetings were essential for ensuring that representatives of IDFI have clear idea on the goals and purposes of the project.
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
5
2. ACTIVITY IMPLEMENTATION PPD QUALITY TRACKING SYSTEM IN GEORGIA - METHODOLOGY Introduction The project “Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking in Georgia” aims to assess the extent and quality of inclusive consultation during policy-making process mainly affecting economic development of the country. In contrast with other efforts to evaluate existing PPD mechanisms in Georgia, and identifying whether the existing PPD mechanisms were spontaneous or a part of a pre-established formal strategy, the given project aims at assessing the actual involvement of various stakeholders in the policy-making process. The evaluation will be based on four phases of policy development as outlined below:
Policy Design and Development – the extent and quality of relevant non-GoG stakeholder (public sector, business, civil society, affected party) or expert (professors, lawyers, economists, think-tank, NGO’s, international donor organizations) input that GoG policy-makers received in the initial formulation of underlying policy behind proposed legislation (initial formative stage), in the very first stages of consideration before the commencement of drafting any legislation;
Legislation Drafting – Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of relevant non-GoG stakeholder (public sector, business, civil society, affected party) or expert (professors, lawyers, economists, thinktank, NGO’s, international donor organizations) input in the actual creation of draft legislation;
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) – Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of the Regulatory Impact Assessment performed related to the legislation;
Circulation and public comments – Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of (i) efforts to publicize, circulate, distribute the proposed draft legislation to the public and stakeholders (public sector, business, civil society, affected parties and the public at large); (ii) the adequacy and extent of efforts to solicit and consider public commentary on such proposed legislation; and (iii) the adequacy, extent and good-faith of efforts to incorporate or respond to suggested comments received, where appropriate.
The given methodology will describe such details of the project as the sample, research tools, procedures, data analysis as well as limitations. Sample For the goals of the project the data collection will mainly concentrate on the laws having impact on economic development of the country. The project team aims to study the extent and quality of private sector/civil society/public engagement in the different stages of policy-making as outlined above. In order to analyze the extent and quality of PPD in case of each new law or regulation, the project team will collect data both from Government and non-Government stakeholders and experts. While the set of particular stakeholders will vary depending on the specific law, the project team expects that the following public entities and sub-entities such as the Government of Georgia, Prime Minister of Georgia, Parliament of Georgia, Sector Economy and Economic Policy Committee, Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia, Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia etc. As for non-Government stakeholders and experts, the data will be collected from:
Public sector Business Civil society Affected party
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
6
Professors Lawyers Economists Think tank organizations CSOs Donor organizations
Research Tools For the purposes of the project the following methods will be used:
In-depth interviews using guided questionnaires (with GoG and non-GoG stakeholders) Observations & site-visits Public discussions Trainings Desk research FOI requests Annual awards Presentation of the report
Procedures On an initial stage a board will be created for selection of laws which will be evaluated in terms of extent and quality of PPD. The board will be created by the project team and will be composed of representatives of IDFI, invited experts in the field of finance and economy as well as representatives of G4G. The selection criteria for laws will be the extent of economic impact, scale of the law or regulation, long-term vs. short-term impact, affected parties etc. After selection of the laws to be evaluated the procedures can be divided into three major phases: data collection, data analysis and dissemination of results. On the data collection stage, the project team will use a specially created guided questionnaire (see in attachment) for assessing the extent and quality of inclusive consultation in case of selected major laws or regulations affecting economic development of the country. The questionnaire will be filled in by project team according to the answers provided by representative(s) of the relevant public and private sector stakeholders. Additionally such methods as FOI requests and desk research will be used. These methods will be particularly important for assessing extent and quality of the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) performed related to the legislation under review. Based on the received data the project team will evaluate selected major laws or regulations using the PPD Quality Tracking System. The System will assign a rating of the extent and scope of PPD conducted on various stages of policy as well as lawmaking process. The scores will be assigned by project team based on the answers received from interviews, desk research and FOI requests. Namely, according to the information collected and analyzed the project team will assign scores to the extent and quality of PPD at each stage (Policy Design and Development, Policy Drafting, RIA and Circulation). The overall rating of PPD scores for all relevant laws/regulations evaluated will result in the final annual score of each public institution assessed. The scoring by respondents will be conducted in the following way: every respondent will be asked questions to evaluate each of the four stages of PPD listed above within a score from 0-10, 0 - reflecting fully negative assessment on any given question, 1-2 – mainly negative; 3-4 – somewhat negative; 5- neutral; 6-7 – somewhat positive; 8-9 – mostly positive; 10 – fully positive. Besides the questions asking to assign scores, the guided questionnaire provides a variety of open questions for receiving more in-depth feedback from each respondent. This will help the project team to better understand the extent and quality of PPD at each stage of policy-making and assign accurate scores.
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
7
On the final stage, the rating and analysis of various types of PPD will form a basis for annual narrative report which will be presented to the broader society at a specially organized media event. At this event, based on the ranking results of the evaluated laws, the public institutions with best PPD practices will be given a symbolic annual award for ensuring active consultation in policy-making process. Besides, within the framework of the project trainings will be organized on relevant tools of PPD process both for civil servants and CSO representatives. Additionally, public discussions with above mentioned Government and non-Government stakeholders will be organized for discussing ongoing trends, challenges, informing about stages of the project etc. Limitations There are a number of limitations to be taken into account. First of all, the project does not aim at covering every public institution in Georgia. Rather, it will be concentrated only on those laws or regulations which will have major impact on economic development of the country. Thus, the results cannot be generalized on PPD mechanisms in all public institutions of Georgia. Secondly, the project is also sector specific, as it will mainly assess the extent and quality of PPD in the economic sector. Another issue is that since the questionnaires are based on individual evaluations of the respondents, some level of subjectivity will be inevitable. Additionally, one of the main challenges on data collection stage will be ensuring sufficient number, relevance and diversity of respondents.
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
8
APPENDIX 1 - GUIDED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS The evaluation will be based on four phases of policy development as outlined below: 1. Policy Design and Development 2. Legislation Drafting 3. Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) 4. Circulation and public comments
Policy Design and Development Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of relevant non-GoG stakeholder (public sector, business, civil society, affected party) or expert (professors/academia, lawyers, economists, thinktank, NGO’s, international donor organizations) input that GoG policy-makers received in the initial formulation of underlying policy behind proposed legislation (initial formative stage), in the very first stages of consideration before the commencement of drafting any legislation; 1. Please assess to what extent the relevant stakeholders were informed about policy before any drafting activities? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive
10 Fully Positive
1.1 How did you ensure that information about new policy was available before any drafting activities? a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
E-mail lists Web-site Printed press TV Personal meetings Other ____________ None
Comments:
0 Fully negative
1.2. Please assess to what extent the selected channels for spreading information about new policy were relevant for the stakeholders? Assessment is: 2 4 5 6 8 10 Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive Negative Negative positive positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
9
Comments:
2. How did you receive information about needs and opinions of the relevant stakeholders? a. E-mail b. Personal meetings c. National Surveys d. Questionnaires e. Other ___________________ Comments:
2.1. Please assess to what extent the selected channels for receiving information about needs and opinions of the stakeholders were relevant?
0 Fully negative
Assessment is: 2 Mainly ↠ Negative
↠
4 Somewhat Negative
5 ↠
Neutral
↠
6 Somewhat positive
↠
8 Mostly positive
10 ↠
Comments:
3. Please name which stakeholders were involved at the policy design stage (before any drafting activities)? a. Public sector b. Business c. Civil society d. Affected party e. Professors/academia f. Lawyers g. Economists h. Think-tank i. CSO j. Donor organizations k. Other ________________ l. None
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
10
Fully Positive
Comments:
4. Please assess to what extent the stakeholders involved at the policy design stage were relevant to the policy? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive Comments:
4.1. How did you select the stakeholders to be involved in the policy drafting stage? Who was involved in the selection process? What were the criteria? Comments:
5. Please assess to what extent relevant stakeholders were involved in the decision-making process before any drafting activities? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive Comments:
5.1. How did you ensure involvement of relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process before any drafting activities? a. b. c. d. e. f.
Group discussions E-mail Web-site forms Face-to-face meetings Other _________________ None
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
11
Comments:
6. Please assess to what extent the timeframe between receiving information and commencing discussions on policy reform was relevant? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 Fully ↠ Mainly ↠ Somewhat ↠ Neutral ↠ Somewhat ↠ Mostly negative Negative Negative positive positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
6.1. What was the information received by the stakeholders? What documents were sent to them? What was the volume of the information? When was the information disseminated? How many days did the stakeholders have for getting acquainted with the information and developing their own positions on the issue? Comments:
7. Please assess to what extent the stakeholders had access to prior analysis of the policy problem (if there was any)? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive
Comments:
8. Please assess to what extent the stakeholders had opportunity to participate in discussion about policy design (before any drafting activities)? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
12
Comments:
8.1. Was there a public discussion held? How many days in advance were the stakeholders informed about the discussion? Were there any documents prepared by the government or stakeholders themselves which they needed to get acquainted with before the discussion? Comments:
9. Please assess to what extent the invited stakeholders attended the meeting(s) for discussing policy design? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive
Comments:
9.1. How many meetings were held? Roughly what was the percentage of the invited stakeholders attending the meetings? How many days in advance were they usually informed about the upcoming meetings? Comments:
10. Please assess to what extent the invited stakeholders participated in discussion about policy before any drafting activities? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
13
Comments:
10.1. Did any of the stakeholders submit written/oral opinions on the given issue? Did they conduct an in depth research on the topic? Were any documents drafted by them? Comments:
11. Please assess to what extent decision-makers were involved in the discussion during policy design? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ Fully Positive negative Negative Negative positive positive Comments:
11.1. Who represented your entity during the discussions? Did high level civil servants review or get acquainted with any of the documents prepared by the stakeholders? Did they review positions and opinions of stakeholders submitted orally or in written? Comments:
12. Please describe the process of discussing the received comments/opinions during policy design? If there was a special committee what was its composition? Comments:
12.1. Were any ideas presented by the stakeholders? How relevant were they? How many of the received proposals were taken into consideration?
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
14
Comments:
12.2. Please assess to what extent decisions on receiving or turning down the ideas of the relevant stakeholders were justified?
0 Fully negative
Assessment is: 2 Mainly ↠ Negative
↠
4 Somewhat Negative
5 ↠
Neutral
↠
6 Somewhat positive
↠
8 Mostly positive
10 ↠
Fully Positive
Comments:
13. Please name all documents (e.g. policy paper) produced at this stage. Comments:
Legislation Drafting Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of relevant non-GoG stakeholder (public sector, business, civil society, affected party) or expert (professors/academia, lawyers, economists, think tank, NGO’s, international donor organizations) input in the actual creation of draft legislation; 1. Please assess to what extent the relevant stakeholders were informed about the commencement of the stage of legislation drafting? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
Comments:
1.1. How did you ensure that information about legislation drafting activities was available? a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
E-mail lists Web-site Printed press TV Personal meetings Other ____________ None
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
15
Comments:
1.2. Please assess to what extent the selected channels for sending information about new legislation drafting among the stakeholders were relevant? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
Comments:
2. Please name which stakeholders were involved in the legislation drafting activities? a. Public sector b. Business c. Civil society d. Affected party e. Professors/academia f. Lawyers g. Economists h. Think-tank i. CSO j. Donor organizations k. Other ________________ l. None Comments:
2.1.Please assess to what extent the selected stakeholders were relevant to the subject of the draft legislation? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
16
Comments:
3. How did you ensure involvement of relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process during legislation drafting activities? a. Group discussions b. E-mail c. Web-site forms d. Face-to-face meetings e. Other _________________ f. None Comments:
4. Please describe how the drafting committee was created. Who was invited? Comments:
5. Please list the members of the drafting committee. Which stakeholders were involved from the Government? Which non-Government stakeholders were involved? Comments:
6. How did you select the stakeholders to be involved in the policy drafting stage? Who was involved in selection process? What were the criteria? Comments:
7. Were there relevant experts and/or representatives of academia involved in the work of the drafting committee? If no, why? 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
17
Comments:
8. Please name all documents (e.g. policy paper) used for drafting. If any documents were created during policy design stage whether or not they were used during legislation drafting. Comments:
8.1. What was the information received by the stakeholders? What documents were sent to them? What was the volume of the information? When was the information disseminated? How many days did the stakeholders have for getting acquainted with the information and developing their own positions on the issue? Comments:
9. Please assess to what extent decision-makers were involved in the discussion during drafting activities? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
Comments:
9.1. Did any of the stakeholders submit written/oral opinions on the given issue? Did they conduct an in depth research on the topic? Were any documents drafted by them? Comments:
10. Please describe the process of discussing the received comments/opinions during legislation drafting. Were any ideas presented by the stakeholders? How/by whom were the presented ideas evaluated?
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
18
Comments:
11. How many proposals/ideas were received/generated? How relevant were they? How many of the received proposals were taken into consideration? Comments:
12. Who represented your entity during the discussions? Did high level civil servants review or get acquainted with any of the documents prepared by the stakeholders? Did they review arguments and opinions of stakeholders submitted orally or in written? Comments:
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
19
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of the Regulatory Impact Assessment performed related to the legislation. 1. At what stage was RIA prepared? a. Policy Design and Development b. Policy Drafting c. Circulation Comments:
2. Please assess to what extent the timeframe for preparing RIA was relevant? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
3. Please assess to what extent RIA has clearly defined problem (including its causes and how problem evolved) which new regulation aims to solve? Does RIA clearly define the objectives of proposed state intervention/regulation? Are these objectives clear? Measurable? Time-bound? Assessment is: 0 2 Fully Mainly ↠ negative Negative
↠
4 Somewhat Negative
5 ↠
Neutral
↠
6 Somewhat positive
↠
8 Mostly positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
4. Please assess to what extent RIA clearly describes existing policy documents and regulations related to the problem? Please name these documents and regulations. Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
20
Comments:
5. Please assess to what extent RIA describes main realistic alternative options that could solve the problem? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
6. Please assess to what extent RIA provides clear analysis of costs and benefits of each option? Does provide clear analysis of effectiveness (the extent to which options would achieve policy objectives) and efficiency (comparison of benefits and costs) of the suggested options? 0 Fully negative
↠
2 Mainly Negative
↠
4 Somewhat Negative
↠
5 Neutral
↠
6 Somewhat positive
↠
8 Mostly positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
7. Please assess to what extent does RIA describe those who would be specifically affected by each impact? To what extent does RIA analyze if administrative costs will increase for citizens and businesses by the proposed intervention/regulation? Assessment is: 0 2 Fully Mainly ↠ negative Negative
↠
4 Somewhat Negative
5 ↠
Neutral
↠
6 Somewhat positive
↠
8 Mostly positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
21
8. Please assess to what extent does RIA describe the economic, social and environmental impact of the proposed intervention or regulation? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
9. Please assess to what extent does RIA allow comparison of options and understanding whether proposed intervention is justified? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
10. Please assess to what extent relevant stakeholders were involved in preparing RIA? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive
↠
10 Fully Positive
Comments:
11. Please describe the process of discussing the received comments/opinions during preparation of RIA. Were any ideas presented by the stakeholders? How/by whom were the presented ideas evaluated? If there was a special committee what was its composition? Comments:
Additional Questions 1. Provide the list of relevant ministries, state agencies and institutions that were consulted. Describe how and when they were consulted 2. Provide the list of relevant business associations, think tanks and other non-governmental organizations that were consulted. Describe how and when they were consulted
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
22
3. Describe other public consultation events and measures, including organization of workshops, round tables, conferences, placing documents on internet for public consultation etc. 4. Provide the summary of consultation feedback and to what extent it was taken into account in improving RIA report and proposed regulation 5. Provide sources of evidence used in analysis
Circulation and public comments Criteria to evaluate the extent and quality of (i) efforts to publicize, circulate, distribute the proposed draft legislation to the public and stakeholders (public sector, business, civil society, affected parties and the public at large); (ii) the adequacy and extent of efforts to solicit and consider public commentary on such proposed legislation; and (iii) the adequacy, extent and good-faith of efforts to incorporate or respond to suggested comments received, where appropriate. 1. Please assess to what extent did you inform relevant public and stakeholders about proposed draft legislation? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
Comments:
1.1. How did you ensure that information about proposed draft legislation was available? a. E-mail lists b. Web-site c. Printed press d. TV e. Personal meetings f. Other ____________ g. None Comments:
1.2. Please assess to what extent the selected channels for spreading information about proposed draft legislation were relevant? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
23
Comments:
2. Please assess to what extent the selected channels for receiving/generating comments/opinions on proposed draft legislation were relevant? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
2.1. Which channels did you use to collect comments on proposed draft legislation? a. b. c. d. e. f.
Group discussions E-mail Web-site forms Face-to-face meetings Other _________________ None
Comments:
2.2. To what extent did everyone interested have the opportunity to leave their comments about draft legislation? Comments:
2.3. How many meetings/workshops/discussions were held? Comments:
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
24
3. Please describe the process of discussing the received comments/opinions during circulation and public comments. Were any ideas presented by the stakeholders? How/by whom were the presented ideas evaluated? If there was a special committee what was its composition? Comments:
4. Please assess to what extent the invited stakeholders made comments on proposed draft legislation? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
5. Please assess to what extent wider public made comments on proposed draft legislation? Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
6. Please assess to what extent decisions on receiving or turning down the ideas of the relevant stakeholders and the wider public were justified Assessment is: 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 Fully Mainly Somewhat Somewhat Mostly Fully ↠ ↠ ↠ Neutral ↠ ↠ ↠ negative Negative Negative positive positive Positive Comments:
6.1. How many proposals/ideas were received? How relevant they were? How many of the received proposals were taken into consideration?
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
25
Comments:
6.2. Please describe the process of discussing the received comments/opinions during policy design? If there was a special committee what was its composition?
Comments:
USAID | GOVERNING FOR GROWTH (G4G) IN GEORGIA Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) Quality Tracking
26
USAID Governing for Growth (G4G) in Georgia Deloitte Consulting Overseas Projects LLP Address: 85Z.Paliashvili Street, Tbilisi Phone: +995 322 240115 / 16 E-mail:
[email protected]
