Skip Navigation

Ukraine

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 5

ON THE PAGE


Current Action Plan

2020-2022

Action Plan 5

  • Number of Commitments: 14
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

EaP High-Level Launch Event Page Banner

EU for Integrity Programme for the Eastern Partnership

Learn about this multi-year collaboration that aims strengthen the support and resources available to country reformers in the region to deepen reforms and advance bold, new ideas in areas like strengthening public service delivery, opening civic space, promoting a fair justice system and fighting corruption.

Georgia

A Decade Towards Open Governance: The Latest OGP Results from the Eastern Partnership Countries

Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine - joined OGP in 2011. Though different in many ways, these countries shared a strong incentive to use their participation in OGP to address Soviet legacies of opaque and highly centralized governance.


Contact

Point of Contact

Nataliia Oksha Secretary of the OGP Coordinating Council and Deputy Director of the Department of Information and Communication oksha@kmu.gov.ua

Commitments


Resources

  1. IRM Regional Snapshot: Eastern Partnership

    2021, Resource, Web page

  2. Late Letter – November 2016 – Ukraine

    2016, Letter, Web page

  3. OGP Letter to Ukraine Regarding Late Action Plan: November 2016

    2017, Letter, Web page

  4. Open Parliament Ukraine – Action Plan

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  5. Seeking Synergy: OGP & EITI

    2019, Research Product, Web page

  6. Ukraine – Letter of Intent to Join OGP

    2017, Letter, Web page

  7. Ukraine Action Plan 2012-2013

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  8. Ukraine Action Plan 2018-2020

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  9. Ukraine Action Plan 2020-2022

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  10. Ukraine Action Plan Review 2021-2022 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  11. Ukraine Design Report 2018-2020

    2020, IRM Report, Web page

  12. Ukraine Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2020, Report Comments, Web page

  13. Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2014-2016

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  14. Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2014-2016 – For Public Comment

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  15. Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  16. Ukraine End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  17. Ukraine End-of-Term Self Assessment Report 2014-2016

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  18. Ukraine End-of-Term Self-Assessment 2018-2020

    2020, Self Assessment, Web page

  19. Ukraine End-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  20. Ukraine IRM Progress Report 2012-2013 (English)

    2015, IRM Report, Web page

  21. Ukraine IRM Report 2014 – 2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  22. Ukraine Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  23. Ukraine Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  24. Ukraine Mid-Term Self-Assessment Report 2016-2018

    2017, Self Assessment, Web page

  25. Ukraine Progress Report 2014-2015 – For Public Comments (English)

    2016, Report Comments, Web page

  26. Ukraine Second Action Plan 2014-2015

    2015, Action Plan, Web page

  27. Ukraine Third National Action Plan 2016-2018

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  28. Ukraine Transitional Results Report 2018-2020

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  29. Ukraine Transitional Results Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  30. Ukraine, Midterm Self-Assessment, 2014-16

    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
3
Action Plan 2
4
4
4
Action Plan 3
3
2
2
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

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

Open Policy Making

Action Implications
Implement for Results
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)

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
Consider Action
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)

Fiscal Openness

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)

Recent Posts

Kituo Cha Sheria Legal Advice Centre

Community Justice: Putting People First

From community-based justice centers to alternative justice systems rooted in culture and tradition, learn why community justice models are great open government approaches justice reform.

Diverse team of creative millennial coworkers in a startup brainstorming strategies

OGP’s Approach to Peer Exchange: The Example of Beneficial Ownership

Peer exchange is an essential component of the OGP model. Learn how it can inspire reformers, provide a safe space for discussing common challenges, serve as a platform of joint problem solving, and strengthen the sense of community among reformers.

Show More
Open Government Partnership