Latvia End-of-Term Report 2015-2017
Latvia’s second action plan included important commitments on open data, public integrity, and participation. While civil society played a major role in shaping the action plan, a broader range of participants in the development process could improve future action plans.
|Highlighted Commitments||Overview||Well-Designed? *||Major or Outstanding Results? **|
|✪Open data||Promote access to public administration data in open data form.||Yes||Yes|
|✪Open board selection||Improve the selection of board members for state owned enterprises.||Yes||Yes|
|✪Online voting||Improve opportunities for gathering signatures via the Internet.||Yes||Yes|
* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, and potentially transformative
** Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as having major or outstanding results in terms of the ‘Did it Open Government?’ variable
✪ Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as being specific, relevant, potentially transformative, and substantially or fully implemented
Consultations during implementation were decentralised, in accordance with the regulations and practises of the implementing government institutions. While several commitments were discussed at monthly council meetings, the level of public influence varied on a case-by-case basis.
|Latvia 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:
Latvia’s second action plan saw significant improvements to open data, online participation, and the governance of state owned enterprises, though several commitments were internal government measures that lacked a public-facing element.