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.
Sweden’s fifth OGP action plan achieved positive and sustained early results in adopting and implementing the principles of the Open Data Charter as well as in developing the country's second anti-corruption plan. There were notable improvements to the process for…
Tunisia’s fifth national action plan advanced open data and budget transparency. A challenging context, focus on internal technical activities, and lack of high-level government validation of key reform elements limited early results despite the action plan’s high level of completion.…
El Mecanismo de Revisión Independiente (IRM, por sus siglas en inglés) publicó la Revisión del Plan de Acción para el sexto plan de acción de Uruguay (2025-2029). Este informe es una revisión técnica de las características del plan de acción…
Kosovo’s first OGP action plan (2023–2025) improved the transparency of recruitment of high-level officials. However, most of the other commitments saw limited completion. The action plan was co-created through an open and inclusive process, but implementation lacked central coordination and…
New Zealand’s fifth action plan includes two promising commitments on government corruption and conflict of interest disclosure. Government and civil society developed commitments within areas approved by government, aligned with the Action Plan to Strengthen Integrity 2025-2028. The OGP process…
Click here for more information about the Open Government Partnership's terms of use.
Terms & Conditions Close