End of Commitment Report – Collaborative process for redifining the allocation of municipal support

Name of Evaluator

Ricardo Ferreira Reis

Email

[email protected]

Member Name

Lisbon, Portugal

Action PlanAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen... Title

Action plan – Lisbon, Portugal, 2024 – 2025

CommitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action...

Collaborative process for redefining the allocation of municipal support

Title

Collaborative process for redefining the allocation of municipal support

Action

Create a broader, integrated, and transparent support system, with the aim of improving financial and non-financial management support, ensuring that all are granted in accordance with the regulationGovernment reformers are developing regulations that enshrine values of transparency, participation, and accountability in government practices. Technical specifications: Act of creating or reforming ..., promoting standardized criteria, an integrated vision, internal control, and transparency in accountability.

Problem

The Municipal Transparency and Corruption Prevention Strategy resulted from a broad participatory process that involved internal and external stakeholders. This participatory process allowed for the identification of areas requiring further development, which were later consolidated into 51 action measures, based on three strategic axes: people, organization, and city. The allocation of financial and non-financial support by the Municipality of Lisbon was identified as one of the priority areas for intervention, leading to the creation of a measure aimed at its improvement: the “Revision of the Support Allocation Regulation.”Following internal diagnoses carried out at different times between 2023 and the first half of 2024, the progressive introduction of improvements began, both through preparatory internal meetings and the gathering of contributions for the regulation revision. It was found that many subsidies granted by the Municipality of Lisbon are allocated outside the scope of the regulation, which may indicate a lack of integrated vision, a lack of standardized procedures, increased difficulties in internal control, and reduced transparency in the process. In other words, there is a tendency to regulate in a segmented and disjointed manner, in “departmental silos”. This scenario increases bureaucracy, hinders accountability, and creates barriers to modernization and dematerialization, as each department tends to work in isolation.

1.1 What was the overall level of progress in the commitment implementation at the time of this assessment?

substantial

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Between December 2024 and July 2025, the Municipality of Lisbon advanced a collaborative reform to unify and improve the regulation and allocation of municipal support. Nine internal working sessions were held with 26 municipal units and 28 members, plus broad civil society input (64 survey responses and 19 entities at participatory sessions). This resulted in consolidated proposals for a unified regulation (RAAML), incorporating transparency, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. While a fully adopted regulation is still pending, the process has achieved most milestones: participatory methodology, diagnostic reports, and a draft consolidated regulation framework.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

GRUPO DE REFLEXÃO ESTRATÉGICA PARA A
ADMINISTRAÇÃO ABERTA GREAA meeting records

July 2025 OGP Seminar presentations

DTPC participation reports.

1.2 Describe the main external or internal factors that impacted implementation of this commitment and how they were addressed (or not).

Positive factors included strong buy-in from municipal units (76 staff in kick-off; 26 UO represented in working groups), good turnout from CSOs, and clear facilitation by DTPC. Challenges included difficulty in attributing value to non-financial support, reconciling diverse internal regulations, balancing flexibility with standardization, and the technical limitations of existing digital platforms. Dialogue and the consolidation of recommendations into themes helped mitigate these challenges.

1.3 Was the commitment implemented as originally planned?

Most of the commitment milestones were implemented as planned

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

The draft regulation and convergence principles (uniform criteria, monitoring, accountability, digital platform) reflect the original design. The only pending step is the formal adoption of the new regulatory framework.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

Draft RAAML framework, consultation reports, July 2025 “Da Ideia à Prática” seminar.

2.1.1. – Did the government disclose more information; improve the quality of the information (new or existing); improve the value of the information; improve the channels to disclose or request information or improve accessibility to information?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The process consolidated fragmented procedures into a unified framework. Internal discussions and external consultations proposed systematic publication of support allocations, reports, and criteria. Although not fully enacted yet, this commitment set a new standard for transparency in municipal support.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

July 2025 seminar materials

DTPC summary of convergence themes.

2.1.2. – Did the government create new opportunities to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation inform or influence decisions; improve existing channels or spaces to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation/ inform or influence decisions; create or improve capabilities in the government or the public aimed to improve how the government seeks feedback from citizens/enables participation/ or allows for the public to inform or influence decisions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

Extensive participatory methodologies were applied: 9 internal working sessions, online surveys (64 responses), and two participatory sessions with 19 CSOs. Citizens and organizations influenced draft proposals (e.g., clearer eligibility criteria, differentiated support typologies, improved digital platform).

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

Participation records; online survey analysis.

2.1.3 Did the government create or improve channels, opportunities or capabilities to hold officials answerable to their actions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

Draft RAAML proposals include mechanisms for monitoring, auditsInstitutional and legal frameworks are necessary for providing assurance of the integrity of financial information and of compliance with budgetary rules and procedure. Technical specifications: These..., and standardized reports, which would strengthen accountability once adopted. Currently, progress is partial, as implementation depends on final regulation approval.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

Draft accountability framework

GRUPO DE REFLEXÃO ESTRATÉGICA PARA A
ADMINISTRAÇÃO ABERTA GREAA reports.

2.1.4 Other Results

Yes

Degree of result:

Marginal

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The process fostered interdepartmental collaboration and highlighted inefficiencies, stimulating cultural change toward more transparent and fair allocation. It also identified the need for external evaluation mechanisms and multi-year funding models.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

July 2025 workshop feedback.

2.2 Did the commitment address the public policy problem that it intended to address as described in the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Partially. The process clearly addressed the fragmentation and opacity of municipal support allocation by developing a unified framework. However, full resolution requires adoption and enforcement of the new regulation.

Provide evidence that supports and justifies your answer:

DTPC draft regulation proposal; participatory outcomes.

3. Provide at least one lesson or reflection relating to the implementation of this commitment. It can be the identification of key barriers to implementation, an unexpected help/hindrance, recommendations for future commitments, or if the commitment should be taken forward to the next action plan.

The collaborative process for municipal support allocation demonstrated the value of participatory design in tackling fragmented and opaque systems. Strong engagement by municipal units and civil society led to convergence on key principles, including transparency, accountability, and digital integration. However, challenges remain around valuing non-financial support, resolving overlaps with sectoral regulations, and ensuring effective IT platforms. The next steps should prioritize the adoption of the unified RAAML regulation, investment in a centralized digital platform, introduction of external evaluation mechanisms, and capacity buildingEnhancing the skills, abilities, and processes of public servants, civil society, and citizens is essential to achieving long-lasting results in opening government. Technical specifications: Set of ac... for both municipal staff and CSOs.