Skip Navigation

Lithuania

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2021-2023

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 3
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

Lithuania’s fifth action plan offers commitments for three new policy areas, with promising commitments on establishing a public beneficial ownership register and opening all procurement data in open format. Ensuring there are no restrictions to accessing beneficial ownership data and creating mechanisms for reporting irregularities in public procurement would enhance implementation of these commitments.

Lithuania’s fifth action plan includes three commitments that address new policy areas – beneficial ownership transparency, publishing public procurement data in open format, and standardizing how the government communicates the potential social impact of draft legislation to the public. This marks a change from the fourth action plan (2018-2020), which mostly carried forward unfinished commitments from the third plan (2016-2018).

Contact

Point of Contact

Gitana Vaskeliene Counsellor of Public Governance and Open Government, Office of the Government of Lithuania Gitana.Vaskeliene@lrv.lt
Ieva Kimontaitė Open Government Initiatives Project Coordinator, Office of the Government of Lithuania Ieva.Kimontaite@lrv.lt

Commitments

Resources

  1. Lithuania – Letter on No IRM Review for First AP

    2015, Letter, Web page

  2. Lithuania 2012 Action Plan

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  3. Lithuania Action Plan 2018-2020

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  4. Lithuania Action Plan 2021-2023

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Lithuania Action Plan Review 2021-2023

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  6. Lithuania Action Plan Review 2021-2023 – For Public Comment

    2022, Report Comments, Web page

  7. Lithuania Design Report 2018-2020

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  8. Lithuania Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

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

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Lithuania End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  11. Lithuania End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020

    2021, Self Assessment, Web page

  12. Lithuania End-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  13. Lithuania End-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  14. Lithuania End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  15. Lithuania IRM Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Lithuania Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  17. Lithuania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  18. Lithuania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  19. Lithuania Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  20. Lithuania Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020

    2019, Self Assessment, Web page

  21. Lithuania National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  22. Lithuania Progress Report 2014-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  23. Lithuania Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  24. Lithuania Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  25. Lithuania, Midterm Self-Assessment, 2014-16

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  26. Lithuania, Second Action Plan for 2014-16

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  27. OGP Letter – Lithuania – April 2014

    2015, Letter, Web page

  28. OGP Letter to Lithuania Regarding No IRM Report: April 2014

    2017, Letter, Web page

Current Data

The following data 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
Action Plan 2
0
0
0
Action Plan 3
0
0
0
Action Plan 4
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

Download
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

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
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Open Contracting
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
4.00 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.58 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.50 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)
2.33 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.20 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.71 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.00 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.33 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.60 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Participation
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Oversight
Action Implications
No data
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data

Recent Posts

Transparency International Lithuania | TransparencySchool.org
Lithuania

Do We Know Who Controls Our State-Owned and Municipality-Owned Enterprises?

Beneficial ownership transparency efforts often focus on large corporations. Learn how Lithuania is exploring the companies closest to the people here.

Show More
Open Government Partnership