Europe Regional Meeting
The OGP Europe Regional Meeting will take place on October 11-12, 2022 in Rome, Italy.
Current Action Plan
2020-2022
Action Plan 4
- Number of Commitments: 12
- Policy Area Focus: Not specified
Serbia’s 2020–2022 Action Plan tackles diverse policy areas, and its promising commitments seek to better inform and engage the public on pressing national issues. However, the overall ambition of the action plan is low, on par with previous plans. The IRM recommends strengthening future action plans by incorporating more thorough milestones that effectively leverage each other to achieve the stated goals. It also recommends more suitably integrating higher-level public servants throughout the country’s OGP process so that the selected priorities become better integrated with government priorities and are addressed in greater depth.
Serbia’s 2020–2022 OGP action plan is made up of 12 commitments. While the action plan largely resembles the previous one, some of its commitments carry potential to enable better monitoring and public participation in policymaking (commitments 2 and 3) and improve access to information and public accountability on combating violence involving children (commitment 7).
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.
Contact
Point of Contact
Dragana Brajović
Head of the PAR Unit, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government
dragana.brajovic@mduls.gov.rs
Resources
-
Serbia Action Plan 2018-2020
2019, Action Plan, Web page
-
Serbia Action Plan 2020-2022
2020, Action Plan, Web page
-
Serbia Action Plan Review 2020-2022
2021, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia Action Plan Review 2020-2022 – For Public Comment
2021, Report Comments, Web page
-
Serbia Design Report 2018-2020
2019, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment
2019, Report Comments, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Report 2014-2016
2017, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018
2019, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Report 2016–2018 – For Public Comment
2019, Report Comments, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Report for Public Comment 2014-2016
2017, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2014-2016
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
-
Serbia End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2018-2020
2020, Self Assessment, Web page
-
Serbia End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018
2018, Self Assessment, Web page
-
Serbia First Action Plan 2014-2015
2015, Action Plan, Web page
-
Serbia Letter of Intent to Join OGP
2017, Letter, Web page
-
Serbia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018
2018, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment
2018, Report Comments, Web page
-
Serbia Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018
2017, Self Assessment, Web page
-
Serbia Progress Report 2014-2016
2016, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia Second National Action Plan 2016-2018
2016, Action Plan, Web page
-
Serbia Self-Assessment Report 2014-2015
2016, Self Assessment, Web page
-
Serbia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020
2021, IRM Report, Web page
-
Serbia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment
2021, Report Comments, 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
Civic Space
Action
Implication
Implication
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
Third-Party
Score (0-4)
Score (0-4)
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)
Recent Posts
Armenia ·
Colombia ·
Croatia ·
Estonia ·
Nigeria ·
North Macedonia ·
Portugal ·
Republic of Korea ·
Serbia ·
Tunisia ·
Ukraine
How Open Government Helps Countries Withstand COVID-19
COVID-19 disrupted the globe in unprecedented ways, forcing people and organizations in all corners of the world to adjust to a new reality. OGP was no exception.
Reaffirming Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans after COVID-19
On paper, the Western Balkans have some of the most progressive Freedom of Information (FOI) laws in Europe. All OGP members in the region...
Advancing Beneficial Ownership Reform in the Western Balkans
OGP, GIZ and OSCE convened an event with stakeholders inside and outside government from the Western Balkans and beyond for a peer exchange on beneficial ownership transparency.
Open Government Reforms and Increased Civic Space are Key to EU Membership for the Western Balkans
This blog is part of IRM Week: A Year in Review. Throughout the week, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) will share findings and analysis from recent reports through a series of events, report launches blogs, and fact sheets. Learn more here. …
English
French
Spanish