Skip Navigation

Peru Design Report 2019-2021

The majority of commitments included in Peru’s fourth action plan are relevant to OGP values, but their potential impact is low. The IRM researcher recommends for the newly-created multi-stakeholder forum to play a key role in monitoring and enhancing the commitments’ open government component.

Table I. At a glance

Member since: 2011

Action plan under review: 4

Type of report: Design

Number of commitments:  21

Action plan development

Is there a multi-stakeholder forum?  No

Level of public influence: Involve

Acted contrary to OGP process: No

Action plan design

Commitments that are:

Relevant to OGP values        17 (81%)

Transformative                  1 (5%)

Potentially starred                   1 (5%)

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) 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. The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) monitors all action plans to ensure governments follow through on commitments. Peru joined OGP in 2011. Since, Peru has implemented four action plans. This report evaluates the design of Peru’s fourth action plan.

General overview of action plan

Peru’s fourth action plan includes commitments that, for the most part, represent incremental positive steps to open up the government. For the development of the plan, the Secretariat of Public Administration of the Ministers Council Presidency (SGP-PCM in Spanish) developed a public feedback mechanism, which constitutes an important advance as compared to the previous plan. Another important step is the diversity of thematic areas since the plan includes issues and stakeholders that had previously not participated in the OGP process.

However, Peru’s fourth action plan still fails to represent an ambitious agenda of commitments designed to bring about significant or exceptional changes in the practice of open government. Overall, commitments are designed around deliverables (websites, applications, events), but lack a theory of change explaining how these deliverables will lead to improvements in terms of openness that citizens can clearly observe.  

Table 2. Noteworthy commitments 

Commitment description Moving forward Status at the end of the implementation cycle
Commitment 8: Strengthening the “Identicole” portal

Improve the Identicole platform to increase the satisfaction of the users (parents) by following through with the reported cases

As a potentially starred commitment, the IRM recommends for the Government to guarantee that implemented activities comply with OGP’s standards associated with the value of accountability Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.
Commitment 1:

Social control of public works

Promote social control of public works through an information platform

The commitment could achieve significant or exceptional changes in the government practice as it relates to openness, so long as 1) the participatory mechanism around the citizen monitors of infrastructure is consolidated and ii) additional access to information is secured, as demanded by civil society and the private sector


Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.
Commitment 18: Strengthening the register of sanctioned lawyers

Enhance the RNAS website, promote compliance by institutions in charge of submitting information on sanctioned lawyers, and deploy communication campaigns to inform the citizenry about the register



To boost this commitment, the IRM recommends incorporating a mechanism to adequately guarantee that sanctioning institutions promptly share the information that feeds the database. Note: this will be assessed at the end of the action plan cycle.


The IRM recommendations aim to inform the development of the next action plan and guide implementation of the current action plan. Please refer to Section V: General Recommendations for more details on each of the below recommendations.

Table 3. Five KEY IRM Recommendations

1.     The IRM researcher recommends the SGP-PCM to proactively share the definitions of OGP’s values and how to address the lack of ambition of commitments with the members of the newly created multi-stakeholder forum, both for the development of the upcoming action plan and the monitoring the current plan.
2.       The IRM recommends the SGP-PCM to support the engagement of civil society in the newly-created multi-stakeholder forum to strengthen their participation in the upcoming action plan, as well as for the monitoring of the implementation of the current plan (considering the COVID-19 context).
3.     The IRM recommends the multi-stakeholder forum to prioritize ambitious commitments in the upcoming action plan, improving access to public data and accountability of key issues (health, disaster prevention, and contracting), as a response to the demands presented by the citizenry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.     The SGP-PCM could articulate the open government agenda with the digitalization agenda, as part of the social distancing efforts deployed to face the COVID-19 pandemic.
5.     In the context of the general elections of 2021, the IRM researcher recommends the multi-stakeholder forum to create a working group to give continuity to the activities committed under the fourth action plan.




No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

Open Government Partnership