Skip Navigation

Cote d’Ivoire Mid-Term IRM Report 2016-2018

Executive Summary – Year 1 Report

Action plan: 2016–2018
Period under review: July 2016–June 2017
IRM report publication year: 2018

The action plan was thematically diverse. However, the lack of specificity or relevance of some commitments made their potential impact difficult to assess. Civil society could be more significantly involved in the process of development of the next action plan.


  Commitment   Overview Well-Designed?*
Creation and functionality of mining development committees This commitment aims to involve residents of regions impacted by mining projects in local activities. It also aims to consider the needs of these residents through development-focused community projects. No
Establishment of communal anti- racketeering committees

This commitment combats racketeering by encouraging local participation. These committees would enable the public to denounce racketeering.

Promote participatory budgeting This commitment aims to facilitate local populations’ ownership over the budget through their participation in its development. The commitment would promote budget transparency and monitoring. No

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant and potentially transformative


According to the government, the action plan reflects broad stakeholder consultation. Yet civil society claims it had little opportunity to influence the plan and that it was largely designed by the government’s Technical Committee, which also met regularly during the plan’s implementation.”>

Who was involved?

Civil society   Narrow/ little governmental consultations Primarily agencies that serve other agencies Significant involvement of line

ministries and agencies

Beyond “governance” civil society


Mostly “governance” civil society



No/little civil society involvement



The government created a Technical Committee to lead the process of developing the action plan. It was composed principally of government representatives, but three civil society representatives also participated. Civil society was involved via a platform that it established. However, this platform was created too late in the process to have any significant influence on the action plan.

Level of input by stakeholders

Level of Input During Development

Collaborate: There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda


Involve: The government gave feedback on how public inputs were considered

Consult: The public could give input  
Inform: The government provided the public with information on the action plan.

No Consultation  

OGP co-creation requirements

1. Timeline Process and Availability   Timeline and process available online prior to consultation No
2. Advance notice   Advance notice of consultation Yes
3. Awareness Raising

Government carried out awareness-raising activities


4. Multiple Channels

Online and in-person consultations were carried out


5. Documentation and Feedback

A summary of comments by government was provided


6. Regular Multi-stakeholder Forum

Did a forum exist and did it meet regularly?


7. Government Self-Assessment Report

Was a self-assessment report published?



4 of 7

Acting Contrary to OGP process

Côte d’Ivoire did not act contrary to OGP process A country is considered to have acted contrary to process if one or more of the following occurs:

  • The National Action Plan was developed with neither online or offline engagements with citizens and civil society
  • The government fails to engage with the IRM researchers in charge of the country’s Year 1 and Year 2 reports
  • The IRM report establishes that there was no progress made on implementing any of the commitments in the country’s action plan


The action plan contains vague commitments, which makes it difficult to assess their potential impact. The government made progress in implementing most of its commitments. In the future, the government could ensure that documents related to implementation are available online.


Year 1

Year 2


OGP Global Average Completion Rate *



Action Plan 2016-2018

5 sur 15 (34%)



OGP Global Average Completion Rate *


Action Plan 2016-2018 0 sur 15 (0%)


Highest Number of Starred Commitments (All OGP Action Plans)



Plan d’action 2016-2018

0 sur 15 (0%)



1. Collaborate with civil society in decision making to ensure it can play a supporting role and partake in citizen action. To this end, increase the number of civil society representatives on the OGP Technical Committee, to achieve a balanced composition between government and civil society. Fully involve the civil society platform in choosing the committee’s civil society representatives

2. The government could further dedicate itself to fighting corruption. For example, it could write, adopt, and implement an anti-corruption policy or national plan, addressing both racketeering and money laundering.

3. The government could enhance its focus on freedom of the press and plurality of expression. For example, it could ease the conditions of liberalization in the televisual sector. It could also expand the areas in which private television channels can broadcast.

4. The next action plan could be more detailed and more consistent, with specific, quantifiable, and verifiable goals.

5. Regular monitoring of the action plan during its implementation in collaboration with civil society: Together with civil society and all other stakeholders, the Technical Committee and the civil society platform could meet every three months to monitor the progress of each commitment. Civil society could have more representatives present during on-the-ground progress evaluation.


Filed under: IRM IRM Report

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Open Government Partnership