Openness of local self-governments (ME0086)

A brief description of the obligation

Improving transparency at the level of local self-governments through the establishment of uniform standards of openness and the development of template digital services.

1. What problem does this obligation aim to solve?

Since 2012, Montenegro has been building a culture of openness and participation through the Open Government Partnership (OGP), but an uneven degree of transparency is maintained at the local level. In previous NAP cycles, the openness of local self-governments in Montenegro was assessed as insufficient, with an average fulfilment of the criteria of about 50%. Some municipalities are proactively publishing information, developing digital services, and engaging citizens. However, a large number of municipalities still do not meet basic standards of transparency. The consequences are: • a fragmented approach to the publication of data on work and budget; • difficult access to data of public importance; • limited digitalisation of essential services; • uneven practice of publishing documents and decisions; • lack of reliable channels for the involvement of citizens and the civil sector. IRM reports and recommendations from international partners point to the need for uniform standards of openness, strengthening the digital capacities of local administrations and a culture of proactive publishing.

2. What are the causes of the problem?

1. Uneven standards of openness There is no single definition of minimum criteria or mandatory deadlines for the disclosure of key information. There are significant differences in the quality of information and the accessibility of digital services. Lack of clear standards and practices for transparency and public reporting. – Reminder for local self-government units: in the previous cycle, the measure from the previous NAP was partially implemented. 2. Lack of support for digital services Digital tools and platforms have been developed on an ad hoc basis, without centralized guidance and technical assistance. 3. Limited technical and human capacities Smaller municipalities do not have enough IT experts or budget resources to develop and maintain services. 4. Poor coordination and exchange of experiences Best practices do not spread systematically among local self-government units. Description of the obligation 1. What has been done so far to solve the problem? In practice so far, local self-governments have taken the following steps to strengthen openness: • Most local self-government units regularly publish legally prescribed information (plans, work reports, budget data), but without a uniform quality methodology and formats adapted to the general public. • Pilot projects focused on digital services and open data have been implemented in several municipalities, and three municipalities (Bar, Plav, Žabljak) have joined the OGP Local initiative. • Ad hoc trainings for transparency and digital tools officers were organized, with the support of domestic NGOs and international partners; However, the trainings were not systematically planned or evaluated through uniform standards. • Standard mechanisms for public debates and consultations (public sessions, online forums, questionnaires) have been introduced, but without a centralized system for monitoring submitted proposals, their processing and regular reporting on the effects they have caused. • Within the previous NAPs, initiatives to improve transparency have been launched (development of guidelines for data publication, pilot portals, participatory budgeting model), but no single set of progress indicators has been defined or mandatory deadlines for their implementation in all municipalities. These efforts so far have created a fragmented basis for openness: they have set initial examples of good practice, but they have not enabled a harmonised and measurable application of standards at all levels of local self-government.

2. What solution is proposed?

• Introduction of minimum standards of openness: each local government will adopt uniform criteria for the proactive disclosure of key information (budget, decisions, contracts, minutes), ensuring consistency and transparency at the national level. • Capacity building through continuous training: regular, certified programs for local government officials (e.g. e-transparency, open data management, communication with citizens) will build expertise and a culture of openness in all local self-government units. • Transparent reporting and evaluation system: An annual mechanism for ranking municipalities according to the degree of openness will be established, with the publication of an interactive report and the organization of regional workshops for the exchange of good practices, which will continuously encourage local authorities to improve and allow citizens to monitor progress. Monitoring and evaluation • Establishment of an annual ranking of municipalities according to the degree of openness • Organisation of regional workshops for the exchange of best practices and adaptation of standards • Involvement of the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) and civil society in the verification of data and making recommendations for the coming year

3. What results are to be achieved by the realization of this obligation?

With the implementation of this commitment, it is expected to:

• Increased openness of local governments: All municipalities consistently apply uniform standards of openness, which allows citizens easier and faster access to information about the work, budget and decisions of local authorities. • Established and functional template digital services: Local governments have developed template digital services that rely on national systems, with the aim of increasing efficiency and uniform availability of data/information. • Strengthening the capacity of employees: Local officials are continuously trained in the application of openness standards and the management of digital services, which contributes to the professionalization and sustainability of the transparency process. • Regular and public reporting on progress: A system of annual reporting and public ranking of municipalities according to the degree of openness has been established, which encourages competition, enables monitoring of progress and strengthens citizens' trust in local institutions. • Compliance with European Open Government Standards: Local self-government in Montenegro operates in accordance with European best practices, which contributes to the overall strengthening of democratic culture and accountability at the local level.

Obligation Analysis

1. How does this commitment promote transparency?

The obligation fosters transparency through the establishment of minimum standards for the publication of information at the local level, including budget data, decisions, contracts and minutes, allowing citizens easy and quick access to all relevant documents and data. Regular and public reporting on the openness of municipalities further strengthens the visibility of the work of local authorities and enables comparability between municipalities.

2. How does this obligation promote accountability?

With the introduction of mandatory standards and annual reporting, local governments become more accountable to citizens and central institutions. Public ranking of municipalities in terms of the degree of openness encourages competition and motivates local authorities to continuously improve their practices. The involvement of the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) and civil society in the monitoring contributes to an objective assessment of the results and timely response to any failures.

4. How does this task improve the participation of citizens in the definition, implementation and monitoring of solutions?

Digital e-consultation platforms allow citizens to propose priorities, vote on projects and monitor the status of their proposals in real time. Citizens' feedback is systematically collected and used to adapt and improve the solution during the duration of the obligation.

Commitment Planning

Key Steps | Expected Outcomes | Expected Period of Completion | Stakeholders

1. Development and adoption of minimum standards of openness for all local self-governments | Adopted standards of openness and mandatory publication of key information of open data in all local selfgovernments (each municipality regularly publishes basic data sets, including the budget, public procurement procedures and minutes of assembly sessions, in standardized and publicly available formats). | Q4 2026 | Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration

2. Organization of continuous trainings for employees in local selfgovernments | Strengthening the capacity of employees for transparent and accountable management (encourage the exchange of knowledge and experience among local selfgovernment units: members of OGP Lokal from Bar, Plav and Žabljak can provide advisory support to other municipalities) | 2026–2029. | Coordinator: Human Resources Administration, Local Self Governments

3. Establishment of a system of annual reporting and ranking of local self-governments according to openness | Regular reporting, public availability of results and fostering competitiveness between local selfgovernments (rankings and performance evaluation reports should be tailored to citizens, regularly updated (at least once a year) and include mechanisms for collecting and processing citizens' feedback. | Every year until 2029, continuously | Coordinator: Ministry of Public Administration

4. Development and launch of template digital services | Functional digital services in local self-governments; | Thu 2029. kontinuirano | Coordinator: Local Self-Government

5. Introduction and expansion of participatory econsultations | At least 100 registered citizens; A minimum of 100 suggestions/comme nts per year. | Q4 2027 – Q4 2028 | Coordinator: Local Self-Government