CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS
1. What issue does the proposal address?
Greece participates in the Open Government Partnership (OGP) without having an institutionalised Multi-Stakeholder Forum (MSF), as required by the OGP Participation & Co-Creation Standards 2022. This absence results in: the inability to effectively co-create the National Action Plans, the lack of institutional space for state-civil society cooperation, and the Procedural Review to which the country has already been subjected.
2. Why is it a problem?
Greece's timeless experience in OGP presents a recurring "implementation gap" between commitments and results. The absence of a permanent dialogue mechanism hinders monitoring of implementation, weakens accountability, and undermines trust between the state and citizens. Without MSF, National Action Plans are designed unilaterally and do not build on the collective intelligence of civil society.
3. Who's it for?
The proposal concerns the Ministry of Digital Governance (National Representative of Greece in the OGP), other Ministries and public bodies, non-governmental organisations active or interested in open governance issues, academic and research bodies, journalistic associations, technological communities, youth organisations and vulnerable groups, as well as every citizen.
4. International experience
The proposal is based on evidence-based international practices: the Italian model (22 MSF members, institutionalised since 2022), the Finnish approach (100+ members network model), and the Estonian digital leadership.
5. Expected results
The establishment of the MSF is expected to meet the requirements of the OGP and lift the procedural assessment, create a permanent institution of state-civil society cooperation, improve the quality of the National Action Plans through co-creation and, finally, strengthen the accountability and trust of citizens-states.
6. Legal and institutional framework
Greek legislation:
- Law 4727/2020 on digital governance (Government Gazette, Series I, No 184/23.9.2020)
- Law 4622/2019 – Executive State: organisation, operation and transparency of the Government (Government Gazette, Series I, No 133, 7.8.2019) – regulates, inter alia, public consultation via opengov.gr
- Law 4624/2019 - Personal Data Protection (GDPR application)
- Law 3861/2010 — Diavgeia programme
- Law 4305/2014 – Open availability of public data
European framework:
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 – Artificial Intelligence Act
- Directive (EU) 2019/1024 – Open Data
- OECD Recommendation on Open Governance (2017)
OGP Standard:
- OGP Participation & Co-Creation Standards (2022)
- OGP Multi-stakeholder Forum Handbook
- OGP National Action Plan Guidelines
This proposal does not require any legislation. The Multilateral Forum may be established by a Ministerial Decision or Council of Ministers Act, in line with international practice (e.g. Italy: MSF Regulation July 2022, Spain: Ministerial Decision HFP/134/2018, Australia: Terms of Reference 2024).
7. Comparison of international models
| Country | Size of MSF | Institutional basis | IRM assessment | Main innovation |
| Italy | 22 (11+11) | Regulation 2022 | Positive | Wider community of 100+ members |
| Australia | 18 (9+9) | Terms of Reference | Positive | Chatham House Rule in closed sessions |
| Finland | Network 100+ | National Strategy | Positive | Dual Structure Model, Open Government Academy |
| Estonia | Variable | e-Governance Framework | Positive | Full digital integration |
| United Kingdom | ~20 | Structured MSF | Moderate | Quarterly hybrid meetings |
| Spain | ~30 | Ministry of Finance Decision 2018 | Moderate | Multilevel integration (national/regional/local) |
Key lessons for Greece:
- Balanced representation (50-50) is a common denominator in all successful models
- Gradual scaling (small → large) is feasible and recommended
- Regular presence of government representatives is critical (Australian lesson)
- The existence of a mixed secretariat strengthens institutional memory
8. Impact assessment
Positive impact:
- Responding to OGP obligations and potential lifting of the Procedural Assessment
- Establishment of a permanent institutional space for state-civil society dialogue
- Improving the quality of National Action Plans through co-creation
- Strengthening institutional memory and continuity of open government policies
Implementation costs:
- Minimum direct costs: the operation is based on voluntary participation and existing infrastructure
- Time of civil servants: estimated commitment ~2-4 hours/month per member
- Secretariat support: estimated need for 0.5-1 full-time jobs
Risks:
- Non-response of government bodies to meetings (measured through deputies and political presence)
- Lack of Secretariat funding in the medium term (mitigated through gradual escalation and voluntary support)
- Typical no-substantial-influence function (measured through public progress reports and IRM assessment)
English