Skip Navigation

Netherlands

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 4

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2020-2022

Action Plan 4

  • Number of Commitments: 13
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

The Netherlands’ fourth action plan addresses some issues of key relevance to the domestic political context, such as freedom of information, open contracting, and open technology. Full implementation would also position the country as a global pioneer in political party financing transparency and the registration and management of public service complaints. The commitments were developed through strong processes involving cross-government and civil society consultations. Implementation will benefit from involvement of external experts for objective learning and comparison with global best practice, and from support for synergies between commitments.

The Netherlands’ fourth action plan includes 13 commitments organized around seven themes that stakeholders identified during the co-creation process. The action plan builds on some policy areas from the previous plan, including political party financing, digital democracy, freedom of information, open contracting, and government algorithms. It also introduces new topics such as electoral transparency, plain language in government, and publishing open data for public complaints. For the purposes of this review, the IRM has clustered three commitments on open technology, which entail open data communities, open source, and algorithms.


arlington-research-nFLmPAf9dVc-unsplash

Algorithms and Human Rights: Understanding Their Impacts

Human rights algorithmic impact assessments have emerged as an accountability tool to identify potential harms, mitigate unintended impacts, and inform policy decisions on the use of algorithms across key policy areas including health, and education. 


Contact

Marieke Schenk Ministry for the Interior and Kingdom Relations Marieke.Schenk@minbzk.nl

Commitments


Resources

  1. Netherlands Co-Creation Brief 2022

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  2. Netherlands Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  3. Netherlands Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  4. Netherlands Action Plan Review 2020-2022

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  5. Nordic+ Fact Sheet (August 2021)

    2021, Research Product, Web page

  6. Netherlands Action Plan Review 2020-2022 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  7. Netherlands Action Plan 2020-2022

    2020, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Netherlands End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  9. Netherlands Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  10. Netherlands Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  11. Netherlands End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  12. Netherlands End-of-Term Report 2016- 2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  13. Netherlands Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  14. Netherlands Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  15. Netherlands Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  16. Netherlands Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  17. Netherlands Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  18. Netherlands First IRM EOTR Report – Public Comments Received

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  19. Netherlands 2016-2018 National Action Plan

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  20. Netherlands Final Report 2013-2014

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Netherlands Action Plan 2013-2014

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  22. Netherlands Progress Report 2013-2014

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  23. The Netherlands OGP Self Assessment Report 2014

    2015, Self Assessment, 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
0
0
0
Action Plan 2
1
0
0
Action Plan 3
0
Action Plan 4

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

Action Plan 4

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
Consider Action
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
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)

Open Policy Making

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

Recent Posts

arlington-research-nFLmPAf9dVc-unsplash

Algorithms and Human Rights: Understanding Their Impacts

Human rights algorithmic impact assessments have emerged as an accountability tool to identify potential harms, mitigate unintended impacts, and inform policy decisions on the use of algorithms across key policy areas including health, and education. 

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.

matteo-jorjoson-M7fS7fnvAGQ-unsplash

How Can We Get EU Recovery Right?

OGP brought together EU officials, national governments and civil society representatives, gathering three actionable ideas that European leaders can adopt for a strong, inclusive, and sustainable recovery.

thisisengineering-raeng-iQqRM0XJvn8-unsplash (1)

Making Algorithms Accountable to Citizens

At RightsCon 2021, government officials and civil society organizations, including members of the Open Algorithms Network, discussed their experience implementing algorithm transparency ...

Show More
Open Government Partnership