The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) is OGP’s accountability arm and the main means of tracking progress in participating countries.
Since 2011, the IRM has provided independent, evidence-based, and objective reporting to hold OGP members accountable and support their open government efforts. This is done through reports and timely recommendations during key moments in the action plan cycle.
The IRM is a valuable resource to OGP members. It contributes to building the credibility of the partnership and enables learning across members of the open government community.
You can find the latest IRM publications here.
To fulfill its role, the IRM process tracks member progress throughout the action plan cycle. The IRM creates the following publications as part of this process:
The Co-Creation Brief shares lessons from past action plans and international open government practice to support multi-stakeholder forums and/or governments to co-design high quality, ambitious and feasible action plan commitments. It is published and shared with country stakeholders before or early in the co-creation process.
The Action Plan Review analyzes the action plan’s characteristics to inform a stronger implementation process. It is a technical review of the action plan’s strengths and challenges that provides recommendations on how to achieve effective implementation and
results. It identifies and focuses on the most promising commitments and assesses the co-creation process. The Action Plan Review commences just after the action plan is submitted to OGP.
The IRM provides a Midterm Review to members undertaking four-year action plans. Countries that submit four-year action plans have to schedule a mandatory refresh period at the two-year mark. The Midterm Review evaluates the refresh process and any refreshed or new commitments. It also provides a general update on implementation progress.
The Results Report supports members’ accountability and learning. It assesses action plan commitments’ level of completion and the early results from their implementation. Results Reports also check compliance with OGP standards, such as the level of in-country stakeholders’ collaboration throughout implementation. It includes insights on how change happens and the enablers or constraints in implementing promising open government reforms.
The IRM also publishes reports outside of its regular publication process. Find out more about these series—the Open Government Journey reports and the biennial Local Report—below.
In this series, the IRM explores the challenges, major achievements, and the future of open government. Understanding the steps it takes to shift the status quo to more transparent, accountable, and responsive governance holds lessons for all reformers looking to apply open government principles to real-world challenges.
Every two years, the IRM looks at the commitments implemented as part of the OGP Local process and collaboration between local government and civil society. The Local Report identifies lessons learned, success stories, and innovative approaches to local open government across OGP.
The IRM’s work follows a regular timeline aligned with the OGP action plan cycle. Each publication begins with desk research, including government OGP repositories. Supported by a global network of researchers, the IRM conducts interviews with in-country stakeholders to verify and deepen the analysis. Drafts are reviewed by external experts in open government and opened to feedback from governments, civil society, and the public.
In response to community feedback, the IRM updated its approach in 2020 to make it simpler, more collaborative, and better timed to support country members. This “IRM Refresh” emphasizes actionable, timely recommendations and the sharing of international know-how, especially when it’s needed most to improve implementation and participation.
Learn more about the IRM Refresh here:
The IRM’s independence is safeguarded by the International Experts Panel (IEP). The IEP members are renowned experts in open government who guide the development and implementation of the IRM research methodology and ensure the highest quality of reports. The global network of IRM researchers also plays an important role to ensure regional, country, and thematic expertise in analyzing commitments and the action plan cycle. IRM researchers are vetted for conflict of interest and trained to conduct IRM research.
In 2026, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) published the Action Plan Review for Montenegro's fourth action plan. The report provides a technical review of the action plan’s characteristics and the strengths and challenges the IRM identifies to inform a stronger…
Ireland's fourth action plan significantly improved public access to government datasets. It also began to strengthen the justice sector’s policymaking process, a national forum for government-civil society dialogue, and the diversity of candidates in local elections. Whilst civil society engagement…
Malawi’s third national action plan expands the country’s open government agenda and aligns with Malawi Vision 2063. It continues ambitious reforms on political party financing and beneficial ownership transparency, while introducing new commitments to strengthen public participation in extractive revenue…
Mongolia did not undertake a process to refresh its fifth action plan, falling short of the OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards’ minimum requirements. As of June 2026, Mongolia did not have a confirmed point of contact or multi-stakeholder forum to…
In 2026, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) published the Results Report for Ireland’s fourth action plan. The report reviews the level of completion and early open government results for commitments in the action plan. In Ireland, the IRM's findings are…
