Skip Navigation

Croatia

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 3

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2018-2020

Action Plan 3

  • Number of Commitments: 15
  • Policy Area Focus: Beneficial Ownership, Parliamentary Openness, Local and Regional Government Openness

Croatia is currently implementing 15 commitments from their 2018-2020 action plan.

This action plan features commitments related to open data, access to information, fiscal transparency and spreading OGP to the local and regional levels.


Contact

Darija Marić Advisor, Office for Cooperation with NGOs, Government of Croatia darija.maric@udruge.vlada.hr

Commitments


Resources

  1. Case Study (2013): More inclusive and meaningful public engagement on laws in Croatia

    2013, Research Product, Web page

  2. Case Study (2014): Making election campaign finances public in Croatia

    2014, Research Product, Web page

  3. Croatia – Cohort Shift Letter – January 2018

    2018, Letter, Web page

  4. Croatia Action Plan 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Croatia Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  6. Croatia Design Report 2018-2020

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  7. Croatia Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  8. Croatia End of Term Self-Assessment Report 2014-16

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  9. Croatia End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Croatia End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020

    2021, Self Assessment, Web page

  11. Croatia IRM Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  12. Croatia IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Croatia Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  14. Croatia Mid-Term Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  15. Croatia SC Application Letter

    2015, Letter, Web page

  16. Croatia Self-Assessment Report 2013

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  17. Croatia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  18. Croatia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  19. Improving Government – Civil Society Interactions within OGP

    2015, Research Product, Web page

  20. Late Letter – November 2016 – Croatia

    2016, Letter, Web page

  21. OGP Letter – Croatia – January 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  22. OGP Letter – Croatia – November 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  23. OGP Letter to Croatia Regarding Late Action Plan: November 2016

    2017, Letter, Web page

  24. OGP Letter to Croatia Regarding Shift to ‘Odd Year’ Action Plan Schedule: January 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  25. Open government reforms: The challenge of making public consultations meaningful in Croatia

    2015, Research Product, Web page

  26. Self-Assessment Report – Croatia

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page


Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
4
Action Plan 2
4
3
4
Action Plan 3
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
4
7

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Anti-Corruption

Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Civic Space

Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Open Policy Making

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Access to Information

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Fiscal Openness

Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Recent Posts

collaboration

Cracking Co-Creation: The Why, the How and the What

As we mark 10 years since OGP’s founding, making sure 2021 action plans are born out of an inclusive co-creation process and reflect societal needs is as crucial as ever.

Old ruins of castle in Ohrid, Macedonia

Seven OGP Countries Addressing Assembly

Lessons from Reformers: The European Center for Not-for-profit Law (ECNL), an innovative project on freedom of assembly, assessed seven OGP countries in Central and Eastern Europe for relevant law and practices between 2017 and 2019.

Show More
Open Government Partnership