North Macedonia Results Report 2021-2023

North Macedonia’s 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... was more ambitious than previous plans, but there were no significant early resultsEarly results refer to concrete changes in government practice related to transparency, citizen participation, and/or public accountability as a result of a commitment’s implementation. OGP’s Inde... following implementation. A lack of funding, personnel changes in government institutions, and the need for legislative changes delayed the completionImplementers must follow through on their commitments for them to achieve impact. For each commitment, OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) evaluates the degree to which the activities outlin... of many commitments. North Macedonia continued to demonstrate high levels of public participationGiving citizens opportunities to provide input into government decision-making leads to more effective governance, improved public service delivery, and more equitable outcomes. Technical specificatio... during the co-creation and implementation of the action plan.

Early Results:

North Macedonia’s fifth action plan was organized in five themes: 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, anti-corruption, public-service delivery, access to justiceAccessible justice systems – both formal and informal – ensure that individuals and communities with legal needs know where to go for help, obtain the help they need, and move through a system tha... More, and environment and climateIn the face of intensifying climate change, OGP participating governments are using their action plans to increase transparency of environment-related information, ensure public oversight of climate f... action. The commitments covered numerous topics, including public procurementTransparency in the procurement process can help combat corruption and waste that plagues a significant portion of public procurement budgets globally. Technical specifications: Commitments that aim t..., monitoring public officials’ asset declarations, public-service delivery, and strengthening access to free legal aidMore and better information about aid helps partner countries and donor institutions plan and manage aid resources more effectively, parliaments and civil society to hold governments accountable for t.... North Macedonia also included its second Open ParliamentEnsuring access to legislative information and creating mechanisms for public participation are critical to building an open, trusting relationship with citizens. Technical specifications: Commitments... action plan and its first Open JudiciaryWhile a majority of open government reforms occur within the executive branch, OGP members are increasingly taking on commitments to increase the openness of the judicial branch. Technical specificati... action plan.

Of the 40 commitments, none achieved significant early results, while 10 saw moderate early results. This differed from the previous action plan (2018-2020), which saw major improvements in fiscal transparency and access to justice.[1] Many commitments did not lead to early results because of their limited implementation. For commitments that were fully or substantially completed, the IRM found little evidence to demonstrate they achieved early results. For example, many commitments involved training public sector employees, and it was difficult for the IRM to assess the impact of these efforts in opening government.

In the Action Plan Review, the IRM identified eight commitments as promising.[2] Six were clustered into two clusters of three commitments each, one (Commitments 1.1, 1.3, and 2.1) on public procurement, and another (Commitments 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3) on citizen-focused public-service delivery. The other two promising commitments were 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... 4.3 on improving data in cases of domestic violence and Commitment 4.4 on legal empowerment of citizens. There is no evidence of significant early results from these commitments. Some were not completed. In several instances, the IRM did not receive responses from government and civil society stakeholders when asked to provide information on the commitments.

Completion

Of the 40 commitments, 16 (40 percent) were fully or substantially completed. This was a decrease compared to the previous action plan, where 62 percent (16 of 26) commitments were fully or substantially implemented. As with previous action plans, the commitments that saw the most progress were led by or involved civil society organizations (CSOs). Donors’ support was also crucial for commitments that required technological solutions, databases, or trainings. In addition, many commitments had been continued from the previous action plan, such as publishing open data, publishing information on public procurements, improving financial transparency and accountability at the local level, improving access to free legal aid, and improving access to justice for marginalized groups.[3] Some commitments were not completed because the necessary legal changes were not made, which was outside of the remits of the implementing institutions. For example, the publication of 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... information (Commitment 1.1) saw limited implementation due to a difference of opinions regarding the legal basis needed for the compulsory publication of data. Why this issue was not discussed during the co-creation phase remains unclear.

Seven of 11 Open Parliament commitments were substantially or fully completed. This was an improvement compared to the previous Open Parliament action plan, where three of the five commitments were substantially completed but none were fully completed. However, none of the six Open Judiciary commitments were started. This was largely due to a disagreement over the composition and leadership of the Judicial Council of North Macedonia, the body tasked with overseeing the implementation of these commitments as part of the Council for Open Judiciary. The contact person of the Judicial Council did not respond to the IRM’s requests for information for this report. These six commitments have been carried over into North Macedonia’s sixth action plan (2024-2026).

Participation and Co-Creation

The Ministry of Information Society and Administration (MISA) continued to coordinate the OGP process, with support from the OGP Council (the multi-stakeholder forum) and the OGP Working Group. During the co-creation process, civil society actively shaped the scope of the commitments, particularly around public service delivery and access to justice.[4] Civil society continued to play an active role during the implementation phase, though the levels of engagement varied by thematic area and by commitment.

Implementation in context

As with previous action plans, donor funding was important for the completion of the commitments from the fifth action plan.[5] Some milestones were implemented by CSOs as part of donor projects. Delays in implementation often occurred due to the need to take additional (unanticipated) steps, such as legislative interventions, the need to involve additional institutions, lack of financial means for implementation and, in certain cases, the change of coordinators and members in the working groups.[6] Personnel changes in lead institutions, and lack of involvement of some institutions, affected the implementation of some commitments.

[1] Open Government Partnership, North Macedonia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/north-macedonia-transitional-results-report-2018-2020/

[2] Open Government Partnership, North Macedonia Action Plan Review 2021-2023, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/north-macedonia-action-plan-review-2021-2023/

[3] See: North Macedonia Action Plan 2018-2020, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/macedonia-action-plan-2018-2020/ and North Macedonia Transitional Results Report 2018-2020, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/north-macedonia-transitional-results-report-2018-2020/

[4] Open Government Partnership, North Macedonia Action Plan Review 2021-2023, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/north-macedonia-action-plan-review-2021-2023/

[5] Darko Antik (ESE), interview by the IRM, 29 March 2024.

[6] Self-assessment report 2024 (shared with the researcher by the point of contact).