Skip Navigation

Kosovo Results Report 2023-2025

Kosovo’s first OGP action plan (2023–2025) improved the transparency of recruitment of high-level officials. However, most of the other commitments saw limited completion. The action plan was co-created through an open and inclusive process, but implementation lacked central coordination and stakeholder engagement. Future action plans could benefit from a more systematic OGP infrastructure and structured partnerships with civil society in co-creating and co-implementing commitments.

Implementation

Kosovo’s 2023–2025 action plan included 13 commitments spanning digital governance, open data, citizen pa

rticipation in decision-making, civic space, public procurement, and political finance transparency. Commitment 4.2 (transparent recruitment of high-level officials) achieved substantial completion. This commitment led to a new legal framework and a central human resources management platform contributed to a more standardized recruitment process, with public vacancy announcements and online applications. However, transparency gaps remained (e.g., lack of panel-level scoring disclosure and inconsistent justification practices), integrity safeguards were not institutionalized as foreseen, and the reliance on acting appointments limited the contribution of reforms to public trust and accountability.

Other commitments progressed unevenly or were stalled. Many commitments that involved digital platforms such as the national open data portal (Commitments 2.1-2.4) and the e-municipality (“e-Komunat”) portal (Commitment 1.2) were impacted by uneven technical and human capacities in government, as well as platform functionality issues. The two commitments identified as the most ambitious in the IRM Action Plan Review (Commitment 4.1 on public procurement transparency and Commitment 4.3 on political finance transparency) depended on the passage of legislation and did not move forward due to the absence of a functioning Parliament for most of the implementation period. Moreover, a prolonged gap in central coordination of the action plan limited implementation.

Participation and Co-Creation

Kosovo co-created its first action plan through an inclusive process, with a multi-stakeholder forum (the National Coordinating Committee – NCC), multiple thematic workshops, public discussions, and an extended online consultation. Civil society widely reported that their inputs were reflected in the final plan, supported by an engaged Point of Contact during co-creation. In contrast, participation stalled during implementation. Kosovo operated for an extended period without an active point of contact at the Ministry of Local Government Administration (MLGA) after the plan’s adoption, the NCC did not meet during implementation, and there was no systematic outreach or reporting to civil society. The dedicated OGP website, initially maintained by civil society, was not updated during implementation and remained non-functional even after technical transfer to the government, leaving no accessible repository of evidence or progress tracking. As a result, Kosovo did not meet the minimum requirements for implementation under the OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards. In June 2025, the MLGA established a division dedicated to OGP, which led the process of designing the new Action Plan 2026-2028 and is expected to strengthen continuity of coordination, support more regular stakeholder dialogue, and improve public tracking and reporting of implementation.

Implementation in Context

Implementation took place amid a complex and volatile political environment in Kosovo. The 2024 context was shaped by heightened Kosovo-Serbia tensions, stalled international and EU-integration processes, and security-dominated public debate, which narrowed political attention for governance reforms. In 2025, recurrent elections and institutional paralysis further constrained reform delivery: prolonged delays in constituting the Parliament, a caretaker government with limited powers, and repeated election cycles reduced the space for inter-institutional coordination and sustained policy follow-through. These dynamics contributed to fragmented delivery of commitments across institutions and limiting opportunities for structured stakeholder monitoring and accountability.

Downloads

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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