Skip Navigation

El Salvador

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2018-2020

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 5
  • Policy Area Focus: Participation in Environmental Policy, Anti-Discrimination, Historical Memory of Armed Conflict

El Salvador is currently implementing 5 commitments from their 2018-2020 action plan.

This action plan features commitments related to fiscal transparency, environmental inclusion, human rights, and integrity.

Contact

Point of Contact

Guillermo Escobar Asesor jurídico de la Secretaría de la Presidencia gescobar@presidencia.gob.sv

Commitments

Resources

  1. A Blueprint for Transparency: Integrity Pacts for Public Services in El Salvador, 2009-2014

    2015, Web page

  2. Case Study – El Salvador

    2015, Case Study, Web page

  3. El Salvador – Contrary to Process Letter (July 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  4. El Salvador – Letter Regarding Eligibility (August 2020)

    2020, Letter, Web page

  5. El Salvador – Under Review Letter (July 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  6. El Salvador 2012-2013 IRM Progress Report: Unofficial English Translation

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  7. El Salvador Action Plan 2013-2014

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  8. El Salvador Action Plan 2014-2016

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  9. El Salvador Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  10. El Salvador Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  11. El Salvador Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  12. El Salvador End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  13. El Salvador End-of-Term Report 2014-2016 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  14. El Salvador End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  15. El Salvador End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  16. El Salvador End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  17. El Salvador First Progress Report – Comments Received

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  18. El Salvador Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2011, Letter, Web page

  19. El Salvador Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  20. El Salvador Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  21. El Salvador Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  22. El Salvador National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  23. El Salvador Progress Report 2012-2013

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  24. El Salvador Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  25. El Salvador Self-Assessment Report 2014 (Spanish)

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  26. El Salvador Special Accountability Report 2014

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  27. El Salvador Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  28. El Salvador Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  29. El Salvador, Informe de Autoevaluacion, 2014-16

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  30. OGP Report Card – El Salvador (2017)

    2017, IRM Report, 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

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

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
2
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

Download

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

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

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.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.33 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.48 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.69 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.07 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.83 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.80 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.81 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.00 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.13 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.50 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.82 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0.52 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.44 Sources

Recent Posts

green26
El Salvador

OGP Steering Committee Statement on El Salvador

The members of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee express their deep concern regarding the dismissal of all five magistrates from El Salvador’s Constitutional Chamber and the Attorney General on May 1, 2021.

blue-green-illustration-banner
El Salvador

Statement from the CEO of OGP on the Situation in El Salvador

As the leader of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), I am alarmed by concerns raised by civil society organizations regarding the dismissal of the Constitutional Court Justices and the Attorney General...

Group with post-its
Argentina · Brazil · Buenos Aires, Argentina · Chile · Colombia · Costa Rica · Ecuador · Dominican Republic · El Salvador · Guatemala · Honduras · Jalisco, Mexico · Jamaica · La Libertad, Peru · Mexico · Nariño, Colombia · Panama · Paraguay · Peru · São Paulo, Brazil · Uruguay

Closed Democracies in Latin America? Openness at a Crossroads

Democracy is facing challenging times globally and especially in Latin America. In this region, only three countries are considered full democracies and democracy is backsliding overall.

43780766892_f09dc0d87f_k
Guatemala · Mexico · Costa Rica · Paraguay · El Salvador · Panama · Honduras · Colombia · Chile · Peru · Dominican Republic · Ecuador

The Challenge Ahead for Latin America: From Participation to Results

After the third wave of democratization from the late 70s to the 2000s, Latin America saw the growth of professional civil society organizations (CSOs) and the legal recognition of citizen participation in public policy decision making. By the time the…

Show More
Open Government Partnership