Skip Navigation

Mongolia Transitional Results Report 2019-2021

The Open Government Partnership is a global partnership that brings together government reformers and civil society leaders to create action plans that make governments more inclusive, responsive, and accountable. Action plan commitments may build on existing efforts, identify new steps to complete ongoing reforms, or initiate an entirely new area. OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) monitors all action plans to ensure governments follow through on commitments. Civil society and government leaders use the evaluations to reflect on their progress and determine if efforts have impacted people’s lives.

The IRM has partnered with Ravio Patra to carry out this evaluation. The IRM aims to inform ongoing dialogue around the development and implementation of future commitments. For a full description of the IRM’s methodology, please visit

This report covers the implementation of Mongolia’s third action plan for 2019–2021. In 2021, the IRM began to implement a new approach to its research process and the scope of its reporting on action plans, approved by the IRM Refresh.[1] The IRM adjusted its Implementation Reports for 2018–2020 and 2019–2021 action plans to fit the transition process to the new IRM products and enable the IRM to adjust its workflow in light of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on OGP country processes.

Action Plan Implementation

The IRM Transitional Results Report assesses the status of the action plan’s commitments and the results from their implementation at the end of the action plan cycle. This report does not re-visit the assessments for “verifiability,” “relevance,” or “potential impact.” The IRM assesses those three indicators in IRM Design Reports. For more details on each indicator, please see Annex I in this report.

General highlights and results

Mongolia’s third OGP action plan (2019–2021) consisted of 13 commitments, from which five were either substantially or fully completed (38% of commitments). This action plan’s completion rate was similar to the previous action plan (2016–2018), in which four of thirteen commitments were substantially or fully completed (31%). None of the commitments demonstrated major early results, falling behind the previous action plan, where three commitments produced major early results in opening government.[2]

Mongolia was found to be acting contrary to OGP process,[3] having not published a repository and fallen short of the threshold for participation during implementation of the action plan as required by the OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards.[4] Mongolia was also found to be acting contrary to OGP process for not having met the OGP minimum requirement for public influence during co-creation.

The action plan’s implementation encountered challenges. Progress was often stymied by absent leadership from the Cabinet Secretariat, which coordinates Mongolia’s OGP process. The OGP National Council, a multistakeholder forum, did not meet during the development or implementation of this action plan, and previously met only once in both 2014 and 2016. Many government stakeholders did not sufficiently prioritize the action plan or engage with civil society, and coordination during implementation worsened compared to the co-creation process. After the implementation period, communication saw some improvement. Spurred by receipt of an OGP Under Review Letter, the Prime Minister’s advisor on governance affairs began to discuss the next co-creation process with civil society.[5] Co-creation for the next action plan has showed more active engagement with civil society.

The OGP process was impacted by political turnover during the implementation period. Following a co-creation process delayed by 2016 and 2017 elections, focus on the constitutional crisis and 2020 and 2021 parliamentary and presidential elections detracted from the implementation process. For context, amidst partisan political upheaval, the Mongolian People’s Party majority parliament passed constitutional amendments limiting presidential authority and mandating that the president serve only one six-year term, blocking the Democratic Party president’s eligibility for reelection.[6] Political turmoil continued to diminish government stakeholders’ engagement with OGP commitments. The Cabinet Secretariat did not convene a government-wide process with sufficient coherence and focus on implementation. This was exacerbated by turnover of key Cabinet Secretariat staff. Additionally, the vast majority of government agencies, civil society organizations, and citizens were not aware of the OGP process.

One noteworthy commitment (Commitment 10) demonstrated marginal early results, expanding the release of beneficial ownership information. This progress reflected government involvement in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). However, the remaining noteworthy commitments (Commitments 4 and 6) faced limitations. Commitment 4 made progress listing tenders on the contract transparency website, but was stalled by delayed establishment of the State Procurement Agency. Likewise, under Commitment 6, the Ministry of Justice undertook legal education trainings and published an online legal advice portal, but implementation suffered from budgetary restrictions. As for the action plan’s other completed commitments, two were implemented prior to the action plan (Commitments 2 and 12), and one did not have clear relevance to OGP values (Commitment 3).

COVID-19 pandemic impact on implementation

COVID-19 contributed to shifting priorities away from open government. It also played a role in the lack of communication from the Cabinet Secretariat, which was already an obstacle to the OGP process. Limitations on in-person meetings curtailed some initiatives, such as workshops and activities on citizen engagement in public procurement under Commitment 4 and outreach on beneficial ownership disclosure under Commitment 10. Under Commitment 6, intended in-person legal education trainings were replaced by online substitutes, with resultant learning gaps. In other cases, virtual meetings offered an alternative pathway to achieve progress.

[1] For more information, see:

[2] Batbold Zagdragchaa, Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): Mongolia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018 (OGP, 20 Aug. 2020),

[3] OGP, “Procedural Review” (2021),

[4] Acting Contrary to Process: Country did not meet (1) “involve” during the development or “inform” during implementation of the action plan, or (2) the government fails to collect, publish, and document a repository on the national OGP webpage in line with IRM guidance.

[5] OGP, “OGP, Mongolia – Under Review Letter (September 2021)” (13 Sep. 2021),

[6] Enkhbaigali Byambasuren, “Is Mongolia Heading Toward One-Party Rule?” (The Diplomat, 18 May 2021),


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

Open Government Partnership