Skip Navigation

Lithuania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

Lithuania’s third action plan focused on the openness of public sector institutions, anticorruption, and improving civic participation. While the government formed a new working group to oversee development and implementation of the action plan, it met only once during the implementation period.

Highlights

Commitment Overview Well-Designed? *
1. Open data portal Create open data portal, train officials to manage data, and integrate into EU single digital portal.

Yes

8. NGO database Create public NGO database to provide information on NGOs free of charge

No

* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact

Process

The Office of the Government formed a new working group to develop the third action plan, but did not provide advance notice or carry out awareness-raising for consultations.

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

Performance

Most commitments in Lithuania’s third action plan lacked ambition compared to stakeholder priorities. Confusion over institutional responsibility for implementation further limited the completion levels for some commitments.

IRM Recommendations

  1. Ensure the proposals for the next action plan are discussed among stakeholders from public sector and CSOs before confirming them as commitments.
  2. Ensure the commitments are in line with OGP values of access to information, civic participation, and public accountability.
  3. Show good leadership and inform the public about developments of the commitments, explain any possible delays, and provide supportive documents.
  4. Ensure the proposed commitments can be fully implemented in the two-year timeframe and that it alone may achieve the relevant goal.
  5. Identify the criteria which could indicate the achievement of the commitments and measure their implementation.

Downloads

Filed under: IRM Report

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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