Netherlands Action Plan Review 2023–2027

The Netherlands’ fifth action planAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen... focuses on government transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More. In particular, it includes promising efforts to improve government information management and transparency of the central government’s procurement plans. The ambitionAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should “stretch government practice beyond its current baseline with respect to key areas of open government.” Ambition captures the po... of the plan could be improved by taking full advantage of the new four-year implementation period, and by including a greater focus on citizen participationAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, citizen participation occurs when “governments seek to mobilize citizens to engage in public debate, provide input, and make contributions that lead to m... More and accountability. The co-creation processCollaboration between government, civil society and other stakeholders (e.g., citizens, academics, private sector) is at the heart of the OGP process. Participating governments must ensure that a dive... was driven by a newly formed coalition, which included active civil society engagement.

The Netherlands’ fifth action plan is its first to span a four-year implementation period. Its 17 commitments are structured around seven categories, with many focusing on access to information. Influenced by the aftereffects of the 2021 childcare benefits scandal[1] and the recent introduction of the Dutch Open Government Act (Woo), some policy areas such as freedom of information, open source code, and open contractingA transparent procurement process, known as open contracting, increases competition, improves public service delivery, and ensures governments better value for their money. Technical specifications: C... were carried over from previous action plans. Other commitments offer a new focus on citizen information needs, open standards, and civil servants’ work culture.

Two of the commitments introduce promising reforms. CommitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action... 5 draws on an existing government initiative to widen access to government information, including measures to improve archiving practices and build civil servants’ capacities on information management. Commitment 13 would centralize the public’s online access to procurement plans for goods and services regularly used by several ministries.

However, this action plan has a lower level of ambition than the previous one. Ten of the commitments have unclear potential for results. Furthermore, the plan does not take advantage of the potential benefits that come with a longer implementation timeframe. Over half of the commitments are planned for two years or less, and some include milestones that started before the action plan implementation period. As in previous plans, some of the commitments do not include concrete outputs. A number of commitments explore preliminary steps toward cultural and behavioral change. They focus on producing research or conducting training but fall short of outlining pathways towards broader reforms or mainstreaming new practices.

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) continued to oversee the co-creation process, while the Talking About Information Coalition took on the leadership role on the civil society side. The coalition was founded in November 2021 with the aim of eliminating information inequalities between the government and other stakeholders. Its membership spans the private sector, academia, civil society, and government, and is open to anyone interested in the coalition’s priorities.[2] It was formed in response to growing distrust between these sectors, particularly following the childcare benefits scandal. As a coalition founded independently of the Netherlands’ OGP process, its engagement reflected the efforts of actors beyond the OGP process to drive open government change. Given overlaps in membership,[3] activities, and goals,[4] the coalition merged with the Open Government Alliance (the previous OGP multistakeholder forum) in 2022.

Co-creation of the action plan kicked off in November 2022 with a manifesto produced by the coalition,[5] who used the development of the fifth action plan as an opportunity to present the government with seven challenges and potential solutions.[6] The BZK also elicited commitment proposals from government stakeholders that had led previous commitments, and some that were new to the process, such as those focused on inclusive digital government services. Using the manifesto as a framework, stakeholders jointly developed the commitment proposals.[7] Three were excluded from the final action plan, as two government proposers backed out, and one civil society proposal was not adopted by the relevant government institution. The workload of the co-creation process was divided between government and civil society, resulting in the government handing some control over the action plan to the coalition. For certain commitments, implementation responsibility lies primarily with civil society, rather than government. The final action plan was developed as a direct response to the coalition’s manifesto and includes seven commitments proposed by civil society — four of which received financing from the BZK.[8] One notable area from the manifesto that did not progress was algorithmic transparency.[9]

The BZK is considering revisions to the action plan, including the possibility of adding more commitments, as it hopes to take better advantage of the four-year time scale to achieve greater impact. Given that this is the Netherlands’ first four-year plan, the IRM supports revising the plan to raise its potential for results. This is permitted within one year of the action plan’s submission[10] or during the action plan’s refresh period at its halfway point.[11] Existing commitments could include more ambitious milestones that cover the full four-year period. Those that focus on research and training for civil servants could adopt related reforms and consider how to institutionalize and mainstream new practices. Stakeholders could also consider adding new commitments to the action plan, such as those discussed during the co-creation process on algorithmic transparency, beneficial ownershipDisclosing beneficial owners — those who ultimately control or profit from a business — is essential for combating corruption, stemming illicit financial flows, and fighting tax evasion. Technical..., lobbyingLobbying transparency allows the public to ensure that there is diversity of participation and contribution to public decision-making. Technical specifications: Policies and actions affecting lobbying... transparency, and whistleblower protection.

Promising Commitments in the Netherlands 2023–2027 Action Plan

The following review looks at the two commitments that the IRM identified as having the potential to realize the most promising results. Promising commitments address a policy area that is important to stakeholders or the national context. They must be verifiable, have a relevant open government lens, and have modest or substantial potential for results. This review also provides an analysis of challenges, opportunities, and recommendations to contribute to the learning and implementation process of this action plan.

Table 1. Promising commitments

[1] Between 2004 and 2019, the tax office incorrectly accused over 50,000 parents of fraud and ordered them to pay back thousands of euros in childcare benefits. This scandal led to the government’s resignation in early 2021. See: “Childcare scandal compensation may cost €14 billion: NOS,” Dutch News, 14 May 2024, https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/05/childcare-scandal-compensation-may-cost-e14-billion-nos.

[2] See https://overinformatiegesproken.nl/bedrijven-wetenschap-en-maatschappelijke-organisaties-slaan-handen-ineen-in-maatschappelijke-coalitie-voor-een-betere-informatiesamenleving; https://overinformatiegesproken.nl/deelnemers-maatschappelijke-coalitie-over-informatie-gesproken.

[3] A list of the members of the coalition can be found at: https://overinformatiegesproken.nl/deelnemers-maatschappelijke-coalitie-over-informatie-gesproken; Members of the MSF as of January 2024 included Bart Volleberg (Transparency International), Serv Wiemers (Open State Foundation), Ruben Brave (Internet Society), a representative of Netwerk Democratie, Guido Enthoven (Talking about Information Coalition & IMI), Donovan Karamat Ali (Municipality of Utrecht), Henk Burgering/Marianne de Nooij (Province of South Holland), and Erna Ruijer (University of Utrecht).

[4] Floortje Fontein (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations), correspondence with IRM researcher, 18 March 2024.

[5] “Manifest maatschappelijke coalitie,” Over Informatie Gesproken, https://overinformatiegesproken.nl/manifest-over-informatie-gesproken.

[6] “Manifest maatschappelijke coalitie,” Over Informatie Gesproken.

[7] “Internal document No 3. Concept long list of commitments,” Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZHWIRfMsx3znmfZlJwjMvW1NcJl2NS6s/edit.

[8] Floortje Fontein, (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations), interview by IRM researcher, 17 May 2024.

[9] Floortje Fontein (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations), correspondence with IRM researcher, 16 January 2024.

[10] “OGP National Handbook: Rules & Guidance for Participants v6,” Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/ogp-national-handbook-rules-and-guidance-for-participants-2022.

[11] The refresh period is an opportunity for stakeholders to reflect on the implementation of a four-year action plan, assess next steps, and determine a way forward to ensure ambition and results.