Skip Navigation

Côte d’Ivoire End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

Table 1: At a Glance
Mid-term End of term
Number of Commitments 15
Level of Completion
Completed 5 4
Substantial 4 4
Limited 5 7
Not Started 1 0
Number of Commitments with…
Clear Relevance to OGP Values 10 10
Transformative Potential Impact 0 0
Substantial or Complete Implementation 9 8
All Three (✪) 0 0
Did It Open government?
Major 2
Outstanding 0
Moving Forward
Number of Commitments Carried Over to Next Action Plan 3

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a voluntary international initiative that aims to secure commitments from governments to their citizenry to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) carries out a review of the activities of each OGP-participating country. This report summarizes the results of the period July 2016 to June 2017 and includes relevant developments up to June 2018.

The OGP process in Cote d’Ivoire is coordinated by the Ministry of Industry and Mines who set up a Technical Committee (CT-OGP), responsible for the implementation of all commitments. It is composed of three members from civil society, three members from the private sector and 10 government representatives. In 2016, some members of civil society established a platform, the Platform of Civil Society of Cote d’Ivoire of the Open Government Partnership (PSCI-OGP), consisting of 20 organizations[1] aiming to be a transformative and relevant force within the OGP process. This platform collaborates with the Technical Committee. However, civil society was not always involved by government during the first year of implementation.[2]

At the midterm, out of 15 commitments, 5 were completed, 4 were implemented to a substantial degree, 5 to a limited degree, and 1 was not yet started. In addition, 10 out of 15 commitments were relevant to OGP values.

At the end of term, 4 commitments were completed, 4 were implemented to a substantial degree, and 7 to a limited degree. The number of the completed commitments during the end of term is lower compared to the midterm assessment because one commitment was not implemented at all during the second year of the action plan. There is no update of the activity under this commitment since March 2017. All commitments had been started by the end of term. The IRM researcher assessed that two commitments achieved major results in terms of government openness and two achieved marginal results.

The government published a final self-assessment report and developed a new action plan for its second cycle.[3] Three commitments (9, 12, and 13) out of fifteen were carried into the National Action Plan 2018−2020.

Consultation with Civil Society during Implementation

Countries participating in OGP follow a process for consultation during development and implementation of their action plan. The Technical Committee (CT-OGP) chaired by the Minister in charge of Industry is responsible for the commitments made by the government, being the operational body for the implementation of the OGP process in Côte d’Ivoire. The Committee is composed of sixteen members, including 10 representatives of the State, three from the private sector and three from civil society according to the decree of 16 December 2016, on the appointment of members.[4]  See the midterm report for further information.[5]

The Technical Committee set up by government included civil society and collaborated with the platform established as part of the OGP process. This platform (PSCI-OGP) was established in 2016 by 20 civil society organizations (CSOs),[6] whose goal was to be a force of reform and relevant to the OGP process. PSCI-OGP then instituted among itself four working groups called Thematic Groups whose objective was the monitoring and evaluation of the commitments in the 2016−2018 national action plan. According to civil society,[7] the idea was to have their own database to serve as an advocacy tool for the Technical Committee and the government. Specifically, the idea was to strengthen the thematic groups to better impact the process; assess the 15 commitments of the action plan with a focus on progress and obstacles to implementation; propose recommendations for the removal of obstacles and the effective implementation of the action plan; and to plan for the development of the future action plan. Each thematic group was assigned to follow up on commitments within their focus. This follow-up consisted mainly of research, meetings and contacts with resource persons or experts, and meetings with competent authorities. The working groups were divided as follows: thematic group I, which focused on government and public action accountability, was responsible for Commitments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 13; thematic group 2, which called for access to public information, was responsible for Commitments 5, 11, 12, and 14; thematic group 3, which called for public/citizen participation, was responsible for Commitments 6, 10, and 15; and thematic group 4, which aimed to foster technological innovation, transparency, and accountability, was responsible for Commitments 7, 8, and 9.[8] However, participation of PSCI-OGP has not been formalized. PSCI-OGP members are not part of the Technical Committee, which meets without PSCI-OGP members, but does invite platform members to public meetings and workshops. However, the government has given PSCI-OGP staff the opportunity to give feedback and comments. Therefore, one may argue that there is a forum. In addition to having three civil society representatives on the Technical Committee, the PSCI-OGP has a pattern of collaboration with the Technical Committee, which did not exist before the OGP process. It was set up to better organize civil society’s participation in government and supports exchanges between both entities during commitment implementation. Approximately 18 physical meetings were held since the establishment PSCI-OGP in May 2016, including seven meetings between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018.

Civil society members in the PSCI-OGP and the CT-OGP advocated for several government-organized workshops. According to Mrs. Chantal Angoua, the government’s point of contact for the OGP process in the country (i.e., Focal Point),[9] and confirmed by PSCI-OGP representatives,[10] the government organized:

  • A follow-up informational seminar on the implementation of the OGP process (20 July 2017). As stated in the midterm review, this seminar provided civil society representatives and others with an update on the 2016−2018 national action plan implementation. According to a report provided by the government, the seminar was also an opportunity to share the experiences of each entity responsible for commitments with other government members. For the government, above all, the seminar allowed consideration of the prospects for a successful execution of the 2016−2018 plan.[11] The government provided the IRM researcher with the seminar’s terms of reference, a short report, and an attendance list including civil society organizations representatives. As stated in the midterm review, civil society met with the Technical Committee to assess the action plan three times. Participants had between two to four days to provide comments, a timeframe considered insufficient by some participants who questioned the government on this matter. The government did a final general assessment without civil society’s input.[12]
  • A pre-validation workshop of the midterm self-assessment for the 2016-2018 action plan (31 August through 1 September 2017): During this workshop, civil society representatives were allowed to provide comments. The workshop aimed to collect participants’ observations and recommendations on the consultation process conducted in 2017, the relevance and ambition of the commitments, and the progress made to date. It also aimed to have a version of the midterm self-assessment ready to be submitted to Cote d’Ivoire OGP for comments and validation before its transmission to the OGP bodies.[13] The government provided the IRM researcher with the workshop’s terms of reference, a short report, and an attendance list including civil society organizations representatives.
  • A follow-up workshop on the implementation of the 2016−2018 action plan (26 October 2017) and a workshop on 2017 OGP activities (14 November 2017): The workshop’s objectives were to outline the midterm self-assessment submitted to OGP; update participants on commitment implementation; identify the difficulties or delays for each commitment’s implementation; and inspire progress through sharing implementing bodies’ experiences. Also, the workshop aimed to announce to participants the OGP outlook in the short term (2017 activities review) and in the medium term (follow-up on the Action Plan for the preparation of the final report and the elaboration of the second Action Plan for the country).[14] The government provided the IRM researcher with the 26 October workshop’s terms of reference, a short report, as well as the list of attendees including many civil society organizations representatives. Regarding the 14 November workshop on the 2017 activities conclusions, the government shared with the IRM researcher the list of participants, which includes civil society representatives.
  • Several public consultations for preparing the 2018−2020 National Action Plan (21 to 27 May 2018 in Odienné, Bongouanou and Gagnoa and from 19 to 21 September 2018 in Dabou): According to the government,[15] the objectives of these meetings were to educate the public about the OGP process, foster discussion of issues of public interest, and collect civil society concerns and opinions to form commitments for the second action plan. The government provided the IRM researcher with the consultations’ terms of reference, a short report, and an attendance list including CSO representatives. The midterm report includes more information on how civil society perspectives were incorporated into the overall process.[16]

At least 30 PSCI-OGP members attended each workshop. Civil society feedback was communicated to the OGP Focal Point in Côte d’Ivoire and, where appropriate, to the government via a letter to the Council of Ministers.[17] The government also sent PSCI-OGP the following email communications:

  • 20 August 2017: submission of the OGP monitoring matrix for PSCI-OGP feedback;
  • 30 August 2017: submission of the 2016−2018 self-assessment draft; and
  • 30 September 2017: submission of the final self-assessment. (However, unlike the first year of implementation, PSCI-OGP did not evaluate commitment implementation during the study period covered by this report.

Table 2: Consultation during Implementation

Regular Multistakeholder Forum Midterm End of Term
1. Did a forum exist? Yes Yes
2. Did it meet regularly? Yes Yes

Table 3: Level of Public Influence during Implementation

The IRM has adapted the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) “Spectrum of Participation” to apply to OGP.[18] This spectrum shows the potential level of public influence on the contents of the action plan. In the spirit of OGP, most countries should aspire for “collaborative.”

Level of Public Influence during Implementation of Action Plan Midterm End of Term
Empower Government handed decision-making power to members of the public.
Collaborate There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda.
Involve Government gave feedback on how public inputs were considered.
Consult The public could give inputs.
Inform Government provided the public with information on the action plan.
No Consultation No consultation

[1] Members of the Civil Society Platform include: Social Justice; Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme (LIDHO); Réseau des Jeunes Entrepreneurs (REJECI); Genre Développement et Droits Humains (GDDH); Organisation des Femmes Actives de Côte d’Ivoire (OFACI); Transparency Justice (Transparence dans le milieu judiciaire); Publiez ce que vous payez (PCQVP-CI); Centre de Recherche et de Formation sur le Développement Intégré, afrobaromètre (CREFDI); Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains (MIDH); Réseau des OSC Ivoiriennes pour le Contrôle Citoyen de l’Action Publique (ROSCI-CCAP); Mouvement Pour la Lutte contre la Corruption en Côte d’Ivoire (MPLCI); Lutte contre la Corruption (ALACO); SOS Exclusion (Libre circulation des biens et des personnes); Association des Femmes Juristes de Côte d’Ivoire (AFJCI); Aide Assistance et Développement Communautaire (ADCCI); Réseau des Jeunes Leaders pour l’Intégrité (RIJLI); Action pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH); Agir pour la Démocratie, la Justice et les Libertés en Côte d’Ivoire (ADJLCI); Centre d’Assistance et de Développement Économique et Social (CADES); and Plateforme des Organisations de la Société Civile pour les Élections en Côte D’ivoire (POECI).

[2] Aïcha Blegbo, Côte d’Ivoire Mid-term IRM report 2016−2018, OGP, 2018, https://bit.ly/2HmhXGG.

[3] Côte d’Ivoire Self-Assessment report and Action Plan 2018-2020, https://bit.ly/2HmhXGG.

[4] Decree dated 16 December 2016 appointing the members of the Technical Committee for the implementation of the OGP process in Cote d’Ivoire, available as a PDF file, emailed by the government to the researcher.

[5] Aïcha Blegbo, Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Côte d’Ivoire Progress Report 2016–2018, OGP, 2018, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/cote-divoire-mid-term-irm-report-2016-2018-year-1/.

[6] See note 1, page 2 for a list of these CSOs.

[7] Mr. Julien Tingain, PSCI Monitoring Activity Report, PSCI-PGO, November 2017, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16TyW9UfHRdT7YeaesHWIAICPvI1us3cD.

[8] Id.

[9] Mrs. Chantal Angoua (Technical Advisor, Ministry of Commerce, Industry and SME Promotion and formerly at the Ministry of Industry and Mines during the first year of implementation – government contact for the entire OGP process in general), e-mail to IRM researcher, 5 Oct. 2018.

[10] PSCI-OGP representatives, emails to IRM researcher.

[11] Republic of Cote d’Ivoire Ministry of Industry and Mines, First Seminar Report, Ministry of Industry and Mines, 20 Jul. 2017, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BxNH2cC-sK1e5fiPjU7L1Dk1PK02OJaH.

[12] Blegbo, Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Côte d’Ivoire Progress Report 2016–2018 at 23.

[13] Terms of Reference, Pre-validation workshop, https://bit.ly/2HmhXGG.

[14] Republic of Cote d’Ivoire Ministry of Industry and Mines, Second Seminar Report, Ministry of Industry and Mines, 26 Oct. 2017, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1vKGHxwucbMfEMvcu8cWzQ_V4Ab5UUQ0A

[15] Terms of Reference and report of the consultations, https://bit.ly/2HmhXGG

[16] Blegbo, Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Côte d’Ivoire Progress Report 2016–2018 at 18−23.

[17] Republic of Cote D’Ivoire, Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report, OGP, Sept. 2017, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cote-Divoire_Mid-Term_Self-Assessment_2016-2018.pdf.

[18] “IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum,” IAP2, 2014, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf.

Downloads

Filed under: IRM IRM Report

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open Government Partnership