Skip Navigation

Ecuador Results Report 2019-2022

The implementation of Ecuador’s first action plan generated important early results on key issues, such as transparency in public procurement and the protection of women and the LGBTI+ community. Civil society and academia had a significant role in the process given the participation strategy in place, although it has to reach the territorial level. A challenge for the next plan is that the formulation should focus both on creating public policy instruments and tools and their implementation.

Early Results:

By the end of the implementation period[1], of the ten commitments included in Ecuador’s first action plan four achieved marginal early results, two outstanding, and one significant.

The main results achieved include updating the open data portal with a significant increase in the number of data sets available and the institutions that publish them. Concerning public procurement, the update of the open data portal allowed access to timely information on the management of emergency purchases during the COVID-19 pandemic, a key point considering the corruption cases registered in the country.

On the other hand, in terms of prevention and eradication of violence against women and people from the LGBTI+ community, the process generated two national plans with concrete actions in favor of these groups, for which State institutions have clear responsibilities and a mechanism to monitor compliance. In response to the need to have the necessary institutional framework to serve these groups, and to complement the efforts of this commitment, the government created the Undersecretariat of Diversities. The active participation of government entities, civil society organizations (CSO) and academia, the support of international cooperation, and citizen participation spaces, were common factors that allowed the achievement of these results.

The commitment to implement the Escazú Agreement, identified as promising, did not achieve notable early results during implementation. Although a regulatory analysis and a proposal for an inter-institutional participation mechanism were developed, the IRM was unable to verify that actions were implemented to modify the current regulations or that the Inter-institutional Roundtable for Environmental Democracy began to work. This would have meant a change in government practice. However, the IRM includes an analysis of this commitment in the Implementation and Early Results section given the quality of the process and the relevance of the subject at a national and international level.


This action plan organized its commitments into four areas: open data, capacity building for transparency, citizen empowerment and public innovation. Of the ten initiatives, only two reached a limited level of implementation, while the rest were fully implemented or achieved substantial level of completion. Financing and technical assistance from international cooperation and the support of counterpart civil society organizations, allowed most of the initiatives to be implemented as scheduled.

The commitment regarding the implementation of the extractive industry standards achieved a limited level of completion due, in part, to the delay in managing the resources to finance the implementation of the proposed roadmap. While for commitment 6, related to capacities to promote access to information, only the elaboration of a toolbox and the methodological definition of the pilot projects were achieved, but not implemented. At the time of writing this report, the country is also approving reforms to the Organic Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information, key to this and other commitments included in this plan.

Participation and Co-creation:

The Open Government Directorate of the Undersecretary of Open Government is responsible for the Open Government Partnership (OGP) process in the country. The Core Group, which brings together organizations from civil society, academia and the government coordinated, accompanied and monitored the co-creation and implementation of the action plan[2].

The co-creation methodology generated an iterative dialogue. To this end, different spaces were set up to present and validate proposals from citizens and organized civil society. For the implementation process, the responsible institutions and counterpart entities (CSOs and universities) signed agreements that established responsibilities for the government’s entity in charge of the commitment and its counterpart from civil society or academia, designating points of contacts for each case. Under these responsibilities, some organizations provided specific technical assistance to government institutions for implementation, including technical training and support to develop information platforms[3]. Most international cooperation funds received for the process, mainly German and American, were channeled through these organizations. Participation, however, was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic due to the prioritization of emergency care and the challenges of sustaining interest due to virtuality. Similarly, the climate of mistrust generated by citizen protests led by indigenous groups affected the process[4].

Implementation in Context:

The action plan’s implementation coincided with the pandemic and the elections, which the current president, Guillermo Lasso, won. The restrictions on mobility forced the rescheduling of the plan’s activities, in accordance with the OGP resolution, so they had to be executed virtually. As indicated above, this impacted the number of participant organizations in the implementation, especially those that work at the territorial level.

On the other hand, the approaches made by civil society organizations and academia, part of the Core Group, with the then presidential candidate Guillermo Lasso, made it possible to obtain the necessary early political support to ensure the continuity of the process. The work of the organizations and the Open Government Directorate was also important during the transition, since it allowed the new authorities to become involved in the implementation of the commitments.

Towards the end of the implementation period, the country experienced a series of social conflicts due to strikes led by indigenous organizations. The government’s response to these demonstrations has generated reactions at the international level. At the national level it has undermined the confidence of many organizations to get involved in working with government institutions.

[1] This report covers the implementation of activities until the end of the implementation process on August 31, 2022.

[2] The Open Government Core Group of Ecuador is made up of 12 public, academic, and civil society entities. Participating for the public sector are the Presidency of the Republic, the Technical Planning Secretariat “Planifica Ecuador” (STPE), the Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Society (MINTEL), the Ministry of Production, Foreign Trade, Investment and Fisheries (MPCEIP) and the Ombudsman. Civil society is represented by the Development and Citizenship Foundation (FCD), the Fundación de Ayuda por Internet (FUNDAPI), the Foundation for the Advancement of Reforms and Opportunities (FARO Group), and the Esquel Foundation. Finally, the academic sector is represented by the Institute of Higher National Studies (IAEN), the University of the Hemispheres (UHemisferios), and the Private Technical University of Loja (UTPL).

[3] Datalat, Fundación de Ayuda por Internet (FUNDAPI), among others.

[4] BBC Mundo, Protests in Ecuador: Three keys to understanding the demonstrations of indigenous groups and the state of emergency decreed by the government, available here:


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