In line with the 2017 OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity, the 2015-2025 NAPC identified and consolidated integrity policies using a risk-based approach. Most notably, it set out eight at-risk priority areas in which corruption was thought to be most likely to occur. Distilling the lessons from the previous NAPC, the 2022-2033 NAPC was developed to anchor Lithuania’s anti-corruption and integrity efforts following international best practices.
The OECD assessment of the 2015-2025 NAPC and the development process of the 2022-2033 NAPC revealed both challenges and opportunities for future agendas:
The NAPC lacked support from leadership to implement some reforms. As a result, ethics officers have limited capacity to promote integrity policies throughout the public administration.
Several legislative changes were intended to compel public bodies to strengthen their internal integrity management systems introducing general anti-corruption preventive measures. However, implementation remains low and there is a lack of publicly available information about steps taken by public entities to prevent corruption.
Despite recent efforts to increase transparency in political finance, data indicates that Lithuanians are among the Europeans most likely to perceive that links between businesses and politicians generate corruption.
There is no centralised and up-to-date guidance for ethics officers on the prevention and management of conflict-of-interest situations. While the Chief Official Ethics Commission (COEC) provides guidance to ethics officers, these communications are rather dispersed and sporadic.
Although progress has been made to improve the framework conditions to encourage whistleblowing, the application of whistleblower protection is considered to be “still at an early stage”. More efforts are needed to instill a culture of integrity, where public sector employees, the private sector and citizens trust the existing reporting channels.
The inconsistent application of integrity measures at the subnational level has resulted in weak accountability mechanisms and control and audit systems that lack independence.
The development of the 2022-2033 NAPC lacked a stringent “theory of change” supported by a robust diagnosis in thematic areas that could help explain how planned activities will contribute to the NAPC’s strategic objectives.
Despite recent efforts to improve and systematise the consultation process for the development of the 2022-2033 NAPC, private sector, civil society and local government organisation stressed that their participation was merely formal and that many of their inputs were not taken into consideration.