Skip Navigation

Indonesia

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2018-2020

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 19
  • Policy Area Focus: Environmental Accountability, Health and Education Open Data, Subnational Open Government

Kituo Cha Sheria Legal Advice Centre

Community Justice: Putting People First

From community-based justice centers to alternative justice systems rooted in culture and tradition, learn why community justice models are great open government approaches justice reform.


Contact

Maharani Putri S. Wibowo Deputy Director for Institutional and States Aparatus Capacity and OpenGov Indonesia Secretariat sekretariat.ogi@bappenas.go.id

Commitments


Resources

  1. Case Study (2014): Soliciting Citizen Feedback on Public Services in Indonesia

    2014, Research Product, Web page

  2. Case Study: Indonesia One Map Policy

    2016, Case Study, Web page

  3. Implementing SDG16+ Through the Open Government Partnership

    2019, Perspective, Web page

  4. Indonesia – First National Action Plan – 2012-13

    2011, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Indonesia – Letter of Candidacy for 2019 Steering Committee Elections

    2019, Letter, Web page

  6. Indonesia Action Plan 2013

    2013, Action Plan, Web page

  7. Indonesia Action Plan 2014-2015

    2014, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Indonesia Action Plan 2018-2020

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  9. Indonesia Action Plan 2020-2022

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  10. Indonesia Action Plan Review 2020-2022

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  11. Indonesia Action Plan Review 2020-2022 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  12. Indonesia Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Indonesia Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  14. Indonesia End-of-Term Report 2013-2015

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  15. Indonesia End-of-Term Report 2013-2015 – For Public Comment

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Indonesia End-of-Term Report 2016-2017

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  17. Indonesia End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  18. Indonesia End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020

    2021, Self Assessment, Web page

  19. Indonesia End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  20. Indonesia IRM Report 2014-2015 – Public Comments Section

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Indonesia Mid-Term Report 2016-2017

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  22. Indonesia Mid-Term Report 2016-2017 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  23. Indonesia Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2017

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  24. Indonesia National Action Plan 2016-2017

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  25. Indonesia Progress Report 2011-2013

    2014, IRM Report, Web page

  26. Indonesia Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  27. Indonesia Self Assessment Report 2012 (English)

    2012, Self Assessment, Web page

  28. Indonesia Self-Assessment 2014 Annes / Tabel Capaian Rencana Aksi Open Government Indonesia 2014

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  29. Indonesia Self-Assessment Report 2013 (Bahasa Indonesia)

    2013, Self Assessment, Web page

  30. Indonesia Self-Assessment Report 2014

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  31. Indonesia Self-Assessment Report 2015

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  32. Indonesia Special Accountability Report 2013

    2013, IRM Report, Web page

  33. Indonesia Third IRM Progress Report – Public Comments Received

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  34. Indonesia Third Progress Report 2014 – 2015

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  35. Indonesia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  36. Indonesia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  37. Remarks by INDONESIA’s VICE PRESIDENT at High-Level OGP Event, 19 September 2017

    2017, Letter, Web page

  38. Seeking Synergy: OGP & EITI

    2019, Research Product, 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
Action Plan 2
1
Action Plan 3
2
0
0
Action Plan 4
3
0
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
2
3

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

Action Plan 1

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
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.

Anti-Corruption

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)

Civic Space

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)

Open Policy Making

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)

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

Recent Posts

headway-5QgIuuBxKwM-unsplash

Design for Results: Introducing the IRM’s First Co-Creation Briefs

This year, OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) started rolling out the Co-Creation Brief, a new product that shares lessons from past action plans and open government practice to support reformers in co-designing ambitious and feasible commitments.

Kituo Cha Sheria Legal Advice Centre

Community Justice: Putting People First

From community-based justice centers to alternative justice systems rooted in culture and tradition, learn why community justice models are great open government approaches justice reform.

Diverse team of creative millennial coworkers in a startup brainstorming strategies

OGP’s Approach to Peer Exchange: The Example of Beneficial Ownership

Peer exchange is an essential component of the OGP model. Learn how it can inspire reformers, provide a safe space for discussing common challenges, serve as a platform of joint problem solving, and strengthen the sense of community among reformers.

Open Gov Week Recap 2021
Show More
Open Government Partnership