Skip Navigation

Romania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

Romania’s third action plan saw an inclusive co-creation process and addressed priority areas such as anti-corruption, open data, and service delivery. However, commitment activities lacked specificity and their overall completion remains limited. The next action plan would benefit from focusing on a smaller number of well-defined commitments that clearly identify expected outcomes.


Commitment Overview Well-Designed?*
4. Improve citizenship application process The commitment would address a government service delivery gap through modernizing the citizenship application process to reduce wait times and open new data about application statistics. Yes
9. Subnational open government This is the first government commitment to expand open government practices at the local level and could provide useful case studies and trial grounds for driving forward local open government. No
10. Set up Transparency Register (RUTI) This commitment established a new official system for reporting meetings between private sector advocates and government officials; such information was not previously available to the public. No
17. Open contracting Adopting the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS) is a continuation from the previous action plan and would increase contracting transparency, allowing a deeper analysis of procurement data by a wide range of users. Yes

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


Romania had a collaborative consultation process that engaged a diverse array of civil society stakeholders. The OGP Club forum is widely valued by CSOs. Moving forward, the role of the new OGP Steering Committee should be clarified, and the Club meetings continued at more regular intervals.

Who was involved?

Civil society Beyond “governance” civil society
Mostly “governance” civil society
No/little civil society involvement
  Narrow/little governmental consultations Primarily agencies that serve other agencies Significant involvement of line ministries and agencies

Thirteen governmental bodies are responsible for the implementation of the 2016–2018 action plan, while another 25 are involved as partners. Additionally, one subnational body (Timisoara Municipality) is involved even though it is not a formal partner listed in the national action plan. All line ministries were asked to provide input on development of the action plan. Involvement from civil society was primarily from the technology and open data sectors as they relate to governance, but also included transparency and access to information CSOs.

Level of input by stakeholders

Level of Input During Development
Collaborate: There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda
Involve: The public could give feedback on how commitments were considered  
Consult: The public could give input  
Inform: The government provided the public with information on the action plan.  
No Consultation  

OGP co-creation requirements

Timeline Process and Availability

Timeline and process available online prior to consultation

Advance notice

Advance notice of consultation

Awareness Raising

Government carried out awareness-raising activities

Multiple Channels

Online and in-person consultations were carried out

Documentation and Feedback

A summary of comments by government was provided

Regular Multi-stakeholder Forum

Did a forum exist and did it meet regularly?

Government Self-Assessment Report

Was a self-assessment report published?

Total 7 of 7
Acting 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



Overall implementation for Romania’s 18 commitments remains limited. Commitments could be better defined to clearly specify the problem they will address, the measurable activities that will be carried out, and the intended results.

Current Action Plan Implementation

2016–2018 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 2 of 18 (11%)
OGP Average Completion Rate (Year 1) 18%

Previous Action Plan Implementation

2014–2016 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 1 of 11 (9%)
Completed Commitments (Year 2) 2 of 11 (18%)
2012–2013 Action Plan
Completed Commitments (Year 1) 1 of 18 (6%)
Completed Commitments (Year 2) N/A

Potential Impact

2016–2018 Action Plan
Transformative Commitments 2 of 18 (11%)
OGP Average for Transformative Commitments 16%
2014–2016 Transformative Commitments 1 of 11 (9%)
2012–2013 Transformative Commitments 7 of 18 (39%)

Starred commitments

2016–2018 Action Plan
Starred Commitments (Year1) 1 of 18 (6%)
Highest Number of Starred Commitments (All OGP Action Plans) 5
2014–2016 Starred Commitments 1 of 11 (9%)
2012–2013 Starred Commitments 0 of 18 (0%)


1.      Regularize OGP Club meetings and clarify the role of the new Steering Committee
2.      Institutionalize OGP across government ministries and establish a budget line to improve implementation
3.      Increase transparency of public spending
4.      Improve FOI implementation, including at the Local Level
5.      Expand and protect civic space


Filed under: IRM IRM Report

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

Open Government Partnership