Europe Regional Meeting
The OGP Europe Regional Meeting will take place on October 11-12, 2022 in Rome, Italy.
Current Action Plan
2023-2025
Action Plan 6
- Number of Commitments: 3
- Policy Area Focus: Not specified
Lithuania’s sixth action plan includes a promising commitment to establish new regulatory practices around public consultations at the ministerial and subordinate levels. During implementation, the Office of the Government needs to specify the commitments further by identifying what it aims to achieve through each and by setting measurable indicators to ensure accountability. (More)
Creating OGP’s Future Together – Strategic Planning 2023-2028
Help co-create OGP's new strategy. This page is your go-to resource for all the materials you need to host and join conversations and share your views on how OGP can tackle the challenges of today and tomorrow.
OpenStories
Everyone has a story. Together we have a mission. Explore stories from across the open government community, and submit your own.
Contact
Point of Contact
Gitana Vaskeliene Counsellor of Public Governance and Open Government, Office of the Government of Lithuania [email protected]
Ieva Kimontaitė Open Government Initiatives Project Coordinator, Office of the Government of Lithuania [email protected]
Resources
- Lithuania Co-Creation Brief 2025
2025, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Results Report 2021-2023
2024, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Results Report 2021-2023 – For Public Comment
2024, Report Comments, Web page
- Fiscal Openness in Nordic+ Fact Sheet (June 2024)
2024, Research Product, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan Review 2023-2025
2024, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan Review 2023-2025 – For Public Comment
2024, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan 2023-2025 (December)
2023, Action Plan, Web page
- Building Dialogue Between Government and Civil Society (Discussion Notes)
2023, Web page
- Lithuania Co-Creation Brief (2022)
2022, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan Review 2021-2023
2022, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan Review 2021-2023 – For Public Comment
2022, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania Transitional Results Report 2018-2020
2021, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan 2021-2023
2021, Action Plan, Web page
- Lithuania Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment
2021, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020
2021, Self Assessment, Web page
- Lithuania Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020
2019, Self Assessment, Web page
- Lithuania Design Report 2018-2020
2019, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment
2019, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania Action Plan 2018-2020
2019, Action Plan, Web page
- Lithuania End-Term Report 2016-2018
2019, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania End-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment
2018, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018
2018, Self Assessment, Web page
- Lithuania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018
2018, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment
2018, Report Comments, Web page
- Lithuania Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
- Lithuania Letter of Intent to Join OGP
2017, Letter, Web page
- OGP Letter to Lithuania Regarding No IRM Report: April 2014
2017, Letter, Web page
- Lithuania End-of-Term Report 2014-2016
2017, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
- Lithuania National Action Plan 2016-2018
2016, Action Plan, Web page
- Lithuania Progress Report 2014-2015
2016, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania IRM Progress Report 2014-2015
2016, IRM Report, Web page
- Lithuania – Letter on No IRM Review for First AP
2015, Letter, Web page
- Lithuania 2012 Action Plan
2015, Action Plan, Web page
- Lithuania, Second Action Plan for 2014-16
2015, Action Plan, Web page
- Lithuania, Midterm Self-Assessment, 2014-16
2015, Self Assessment, Web page
- OGP Letter – Lithuania – April 2014
2015, Letter, Web page
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
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
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
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Civic Space
Action
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Open Policy Making
Action
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
Access to Information
Action
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
Fiscal Openness
Action
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
No data
Recent Posts
Faces of Open Government: Agila Barzdienė and Rugilė Trumpytė
To mark the International Day for People with Disabilities, Agila Barzdienė and Rugilė Trumpytė discuss how socially responsible procurement is advancing inclusion and accessibility in Lithuania.
Scotland, United Kingdom · Norway · Finland · Netherlands · Estonia · Latvia · Lithuania · Sweden · Germany
Four Steps Towards Fiscal Openness
The OGP Nordic+ group met in April 2024 and again during Open Gov Week to discuss how to advance fiscal transparency and enhance participation in fiscal policy. From these discussions, four key lessons emerged, each illustrated with practical examples from various countries.
How Participatory Budgeting Shapes Communities in Lithuania
As you think about where your tax payers‘ money go, spare a thought whether you have a say in it. One of the ways to do so is participatory budgeting. For over thirty years now, participatory budgeting has been used…
Do We Know Who Controls Our State-Owned and Municipality-Owned Enterprises?
¿Sabemos quién controla a las empresas estatales y municipales?
Beneficial ownership transparency efforts often focus on large corporations. Learn how Lithuania is exploring the companies closest to the people here.
En el marco del movimiento por la transparencia en beneficiarios reales, es importante también pensar en un tema menos explorado, las empresas estatales y municipales. Identificar y monitorear a las entidades que controlan a las empresas estatales y municipales es…
Los derechos de las personas detenidas: Nuevo informe publicado por Fair Trials identifica oportunidades de mejora en las Cartas de Derechos de Europa
Originalmente publicado por la organización Defender el derecho humano a un juicio justo en FairTrials.org. Las Cartas de Derechos pueden tener un impacto positivo pues ayudan a las personas detenidas por la policía a saber cuáles son sus derechos, pero existen…