The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a partnership in two respects. First, it is a partnership between governments that have committed themselves to practice and to promote the transparency of government operations. Second, it is a partnership between substantial components of global civil society, to collaborate with governments that are willing to bring about the enhanced transparency of government operations.

Such a partnership is not entirely without precedent. At least two worldwide institutions that were established about a decade earlier, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative pioneered bringing together governments and civil society in pursuit of shared goals. Most observers of these institutions would agree that their effectiveness is in substantial measure a consequence of these collaborations.

OGP builds on the examples of these predecessors and more explicitly asserts that its mission can best be advanced through the ongoing interaction of governments and civil society. It seems fitting that such a collaboration should be constructed around the question of open government. In the past two decades, issues relating to governmental transparency have risen to the top of the agenda of civil society in all parts of the world. A number of new civil society institutions operating globally—among them Transparency International, Global Witness, and the International Budget Partnership—were established in the 1990s to campaign in different ways for enhanced transparency and against corruption. They were followed in the first decade of this century by the formation of a host of additional civil society institutions that have identified and focused on particular aspects of government transparency. The rapidly growing identification of civil society with the cause of open government during this period has been backed by a significant number of leading philanthropic institutions, which have recognized that transparency is the key to advances in other areas of concern. The philanthropies also have become important constituents for the engagement of civil society in OGP.

In the same era, generally in response to strong pressure from civil society, a large number of governments have adopted new laws to further government transparency. The great majority of the approximately 90 countries that now have freedom of information laws, for example, have adopted them since 1990. Although the movement for open government had its roots much earlier, it acquired the characteristics of a global movement in the 1990s—in much the way that other global movements, such as the women’s movement, the environmental movement, and the international human rights movement, developed two decades earlier. Just as those earlier movements have taken hold in all parts of the world except in a handful of the most repressive countries, the same is now true of the open government movement. In the short space of about two decades, it has become a global movement. The establishment of OGP shows how far it has come.

Of course, each of those earlier global movements has suffered significant setbacks from time to time, even as they continue to try to make progress in achieving their goals. No doubt the same will be true of OGP. Even governments that join OGP are likely to resist some proposals for heightened transparency, citing other governmental interests that may be compromised. In some cases, working out how far it is appropriate to go in the direction of transparency, while safeguarding national security, law enforcement confidentiality, trade secrecy, and individual privacy, will raise difficult issues. Some variation in the way that such questions are resolved at various times and places may be appropriate because of differing circumstances.

Yet the establishment of OGP suggests the emergence of a new norm for governance. It presumes that government operations should take place transparently and should be vigorously promoted both by the governmental members of OGP and by their civil society collaborators. That presumption can be achieved, but only if deviations from transparency are individually justified. That norm is the reverse of what had previously been the prevailing global practice. Although concealment was not often specifically articulated, in much of the world, government operations were previously expected to be hidden from view. The burden rested on the proponents of transparency to demonstrate that government operations should be visible. OGP represents the shift of that burden.

One of the early champions of transparent government in the United States, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, once wrote, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Today, Justice Brandeis’s words could be a slogan that epitomizes the emerging norm of open government and its embrace by a global partnership of governments and of civil society.

Innovating Government on a Global Stage – OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement

Crawling pubs on a Friday night in Prenzlauer Berg, one of Berlin’s hip districts, chatting up guys in bars that have as special names as “Zu mir oder zu Dir” (“to me or to you”) and getting their autographs. This is not the latest marketing idea to line up men and women in Germany’s capital renown for having too many singles. This is what you do when gathering signatures for the “Energietisch” (“energy table”), Berlin’s current citizens’ initiative.

The initiative aims at giving back the power grid to Berlin’s citizens by making it a public good and providing renewable energy. Currently, Vattenfall provides the network and it supplies most of the power in Berlin, which means that profits go into the pockets of the Swedish company. Berlin’s energy sector was privatised in the late 1990s. The current lease will run out at the end of 2014. The year 2013 therefore is the time to make use of the “Volksbegehren”, the tool of direct democracy at federal level in the Land of Berlin. It stipulates that seven per cent of Berlin’s eligible citizens must sign the law proposal to be handed over to Berlin’s parliament. This are actually 173,000 signatures but the proclaimed goal are 200,000 as ten per cent of signatures tend to be invalid.

The initiative, which is backed by an alliance of about 50 local groups, had organised a political camp to run from 10 until 29 May 2013. Hosted in an old school in the North-East of Berlin the camp invites people from everywhere to take part in the campaign. I arrived on Friday, the camp’s very first day, where I met Michael Efler. He is one of the main people behind the “Energietisch”. He had just convinced Martin Sonneborn – a well-known German satirist – to sign the citizens’ initiative. Michael was happy but eager to gather many more signatures. That is why he announced to go out in Prenzlauer Berg at night.

Having heard so much about Prenzlauer Berg it was no question for me to join. The district was a cell of the 1989 democratic revolution in the former East of Berlin. Run down and with affordable rents after the fall of the wall, the district was more and more gentrified and it is bohemian now. Daniel Lentfer, a democracy activist from Hamburg who was successful in the Hanseatic city with the Transparenzgesetz and Jorge, a Spaniard living in Berlin and volunteer in the political camp, were up to the pub crawl also.

The reactions were mostly positive. I did not have to engage in a lot of controversy. Mentioning the name of the Swedish energy company often was enough to make sign the people on a night out. Some asked curious questions about how all the energy could be provided by green energy only. Others wanted to know about the consequences of their signature, being cautious that their data might be misused. And then of course there were men and women who declined.

After two hours of pub crawling we sat down for a cocktail in “Himalaya”. Collecting 200,000 signatures feels like climbing high mountains. Three days have shown me this. Never before I have walked around that much. Never before I have talked to so many people: People I was surprised about that they are politically interested. People who have foreign roots but speak perfect German. People I would be sure they would sign but they didn’t. Collecting signatures in Berlin meant revising my perceptions of people.

I am pressing my fingers tight that Michael Efler and all the activists in Berlin will make it. As of today, four more weeks remain to collect the about 100,000 signatures that are still needed. The deadline is 10 June 2013.

Do you want to help? Go to Berlin, a part of your travel costs will be reimbursed and there is free lodging. Join the democracy hype in the Hauptstadt. It will make you feel good.

For further information please contact:

Michael Efler at efler@berliner-energietisch.net

I warmly welcome Ireland’s intention to participate in the OGP – a move strongly backed by Irish civil society.

As current lead co-chair of the OGP, the UK is evangelical about spreading the word of the benefits of open government. The essence of the OGP is collaboration between governments and civil society to forge more innovative and open ways of working that give the public more choice, foster growth and keep governments honest.

– Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the UK Government, current lead co-chair of the Open Government Partnership

Originally posted at gov.uk

“Inevitably, there will be questions about what we are each prepared to sign up to,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron in January, in his letter to his fellow G8 leaders. For months later, Russia has made clear it clear what it wasn’t willing to sign onto: the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The most recent update on Russia is that the Kremlin will be pursuing “open government” on its own terms. Russia has withdrawn the letter of intent that it submitted on April 2012 in Brazil, at the first annual meeting of the Open Government Partnership.

If the dominant binary of the 21st century is between open and closed, Russia looks more interested in opting towards more controllable, technocratic options that involve discretionary data releases instead of an independent judiciary or freedom of assembly or the press.

One of the challenges of the Open Government Partnership has always been the criteria that a country had to pass to join and then continue to be a member. Russia’s inclusion in OGP instantly raised eyebrows, doubts and fears last April, given rampant corruption in the public sector and Russia’s terrible record on press freedom.

“Russia’s withdrawal from the OGP is an important reminder that open government isn’t easy or politically simple,” said Nathaniel Heller, executive director of Global Integrity. “While we don’t yet fully understand why Russia is leaving OGP, it’s safe to assume that the powers that be in the Kremlin decided that it was untenable to give reformers elsewhere in the Russian government the freedom to advance the open government agenda within the bureaucracy.”

The choices of Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev, who had publicly supported joining the OGP and made open government a principle of his government, may well have been called into question by Russia’s powerful president, Vladimir Putin.

Medvedev had been signaling a move towards adopting more comfortable sorts of “openness” for some time, leading up to and following Russia joining the Open Government Partnership in December 2012. Russia’s prime minister has sought to position himself as a reformer on the world stage, making a pitch at Davis for Russia being “open for business” earlier this year at the Davos economic forum. Adopting substantive open government reforms could well make a difference with respect to foreign investors concerns about corruption and governance.

While the Kremlin shows few signs of loosening its iron grip on national security and defense secrets, Russia faces the same need to modernize to meet the increasing demand of its citizens for online services as every developed nation.

Even if Russia may not be continue its membership in the Open Government Partnership, the Russian government’s version of “openness” may endure, at least with respect to federal, city and state IT systems. Over the winter, a version of “Open Government a la Russe” – in Cyrillic,большоеправительство or “big government” — seemed to accelerating at the national level and catching on in its capital. Maybe that will still happen, and Russion national action plan will go forward.

“While Russia’s approach to open government may be primarily technocratic, there’s a sense in which even the strongest legal requirements are only tools we give to our allies in governments,” said John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunight Foundation. “FOI officers analyzing records, or judges deciding whether or not to enforce laws are embodying both legal and cultural realities when they determine how open a country will be, just as much as policy makers who determine which policies to pass. While Russia’s initial commitment to OGP was likely a surprising boon for internal champions for reform, its withdrawal will also serve as a demonstration of the difficulty of making a political commitment to openness there.”

What is more clear, however, is that the Kremlin seems much more interested the sort of “open government” that creates economic value, as opposed to sustaining independent auditors, press or civil society that’s required in functional democracies. Plutocracy and kleptrocacy doesn’t typically co-exist well open, democratic governments — or vice versa.

Given that the United States efforts on open government prominently feature the pursuit of similar value in releasing government data, Russia’s focus isn’t novel. In fact, “open data” is part of more than half of the plans of the participating countries in OGP, along with e-government reforms. In May of 2012, a presidential declaration directed governmental bodies to open up government data.

In February, Moscow launched an open data platform, at data.mos.ru, that supplied material fordigital atlas of the city. Russia established an “open data council” the same month. Those steps forward could stand to benefit Russian citizens and bring some tangential benefits to transparency and accountability, if Russia and its cities can stomach the release of embarrassing data about spending, budgets or performance.

While some accounts of open government in Russia highlighted the potential of Russia to tap into new opportunities for innovation afforded by connected citizenry that exist around the world, crackdowns on civil society and transparency organizations have sorely tested the Russian government’s credibility on the issue. This trial of anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny for corruption this spring showed how far Russia has to go.

“Open government isn’t just open data nor is it e-government, two areas in which the Russian Federal had appeared to be willing to engage on the open government agenda,” said Heller. “Many observers doubted how far Russia could take open government in a climate of political repression, civil society crackdowns, and judicial abuse of power.”

Today’s news looks like a victory of conservatives in the Kremlin over government reformers interested in reducing corruption and adopting modern public sector management techniques. “We need to use modern technologies, crowd sourcing,” said Medvedev said in January 2013. “Those technologies change the status and enhance the legitimacy of decisions made in government.”

Changes in technology will undoubtedly influence Russia, as they will every country, albeit within the cultural and economic context of each. This withdrawal from OGP, however, may be a missed opportunity for civil society, at least with respect to losing a lever for reform, reduced corruption and institutions accountable to the people. Leaving the partnership suggests that Russia may be a bit scared of real transparency, or least the sort where the national government willing allows itself to be criticized by civil society and foreign non-governmental organizations.

It’s something of a mixed victory for the Open Government Partnership, too: getting to be a member and stay one means something, after all.

“For the Open Government Partnership, this will be seen as a bit of a blow to their progress, but its success was never predicated on getting every qualifying government to join,” said Wonderlich. “In a sense, Russia’s withdrawal may alleviate the need for OGP to grapple with Russia’s recent, severe treatment of NGOs there. More broadly, Russia’s withdrawal may better define the space in which the OGP mechanism can function well. Building a movement around commitments from heads of state has allowed OGP’s ranks to rapidly grow, but we’re also probably entering a new time for OGP, where the depth and reliability of those commitments will become clearer. Transitions between governments, domestic politics, corruption scandals, hypocritical behavior, uncooperative legislatures, exclusion of domestic NGOs, and internal power struggles may all threaten individual national commitments, and OGP will need to determine how to adapt to each of these challenges. OGP will need to determine whether it wants to be the arbiter of appropriate behavior on each of these dimensions, or whether its role is better left to the commitments and National Action Plans on which it was founded. “

If OGP is to endure and have a meaningful impact on the world, its imprimatur has to have integrity and some weight of moral justice, based upon internationally shared norms on human rights and civil liberties. As press freedom goes, so to does open government and democracy.

“International boosters of open government may want to remain cautious at embracing open government reformers at the first whiff of ‘openness’ or rhetorical commitment to the agenda,” said Heller. “Within weeks of Russia first making noise around joining OGP, the World Bank and others rushed to assemble a major international conference in the country around open government to boost reformers inside the bureaucracy as they sought to move the country into OGP. While no one should criticize those efforts, they are a sobering reminder that initial rhetorical commitment to open government can only take us so far, and it’s wise to keep the political powder dry for other downstream fights.”

Given the scale of bribery and the impact of corruption on growth, Russians can only hope that more “openness” with teeth comes to their country soon.

We welcome the Irish government’s announcement that Ireland will participate in the Open Government Partnership (OGP).  This international initiative aims to strengthen cooperation between civil society and the state, enhancing transparency and openness through citizen participation and dialogue.

We commend Minister Brendan Howlin, TD, and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who played a vital role in bringing Ireland into this international effort for inclusive, open, best-practice governance.

The Open Government agenda comprises measures to secure greater openness, integrity, transparency and accountability of public administration by strengthening public governance and the effectiveness of state institutions, and is an important determinant of an economy’s sustainable long‐term growth potential.

We look forward to a constructive process, in which citizens and civil society organisations work with the government to improve accountability, transparency and reform through the co-creation and implementation of an ambitious Action Plan to which all stakeholders will contribute.

Signed,

Denis Parfenov ActiveCitizen  www.activecitizen.cc

Martin Wallace ActiveCitizen

Nat O’Connor TASC www.tasc.ie

Tom Stewart Open Learning Ireland www.openlearningireland.com

Nuala Haughey, Transparency International Ireland www.transparency.ie

Note to editors:  

Please see today’s Government statement here::

http://per.gov.ie/2013/05/20/minister-for-public-expenditure-and-reform-issues-letter-of-intent-for-ireland-to-participate-in-the-open-government-partnership/

Originally posted on Open Government Ireland Google Group

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/open-government-ireland/UZF8HECl09U

Image source: government buildings2, by psyberartist, via Flickr

It is interesting to note that there are some businesses that claim to have product traceability in their supply chains but more often than not this tends to be about electronic label tracking rather than actual understanding of supplier sustainability. More businesses need to take this issue seriously.

However, understanding suppliers, their ability to be consistently responsible and to ensure they are running their businesses efficiently and not passing on unnecessary cost and risk to customers can be a difficult and costly process. So what role can open data have in helping businesses get to grips with suppliers and suppliers’ suppliers?

We would argue that unless businesses adopt a policy of open data and collaboration, any attempts to forge a long term supply chain plan will be short lived. There has to be leverage in the supply chain too. Businesses must start mandating their suppliers to openly report as this is crucial to transparency in the long term.

A recent comment on Twitter from BT’s CSO Niall Dunne said that supply chain transparency without open data was “like Ginger without Fred.” Like all great double acts, transparency and open data can and should work in tandem to form the perfect storm. Energy data in this instance is at the eye of the storm, as it can get companies used to the idea of reporting openly, eventually leading to other metrics such as diversity, building certification and even child labour.

According to a Deloitte report released earlier this year, energy data is one of the key elements of understanding the true nature of a business. Measuring and reporting energy data openly should be a baseline requirement for any modern business that takes reputation and risk seriously. There is also a hard economic reason why this should happen. With energy costs rising, emerging market supply chains increasing and competition putting pressure on products and pricing, anything that can offer competitive advantage has a value.

Analysing energy and carbon data to identify cost benefit is the first stage in building a sustainable business future, something which should have immediate impact on profitability.

If this is extended into the supply chains it is possible for businesses to quickly build a picture of potential issues but also opportunities. Understanding suppliers in terms of energy consumption and emissions would clearly identify areas of waste and inefficiency, enabling institutions to shave unnecessary costs off of the inventory.

A PwC survey revealed last week that 81 per cent of businesses who rate sustainability as important favour collaborating with their suppliers to create a responsible supply chain footprint and procurement framework. Is this enough? How do you get suppliers to participate?

Money talks, and in this case, the tired old mantra “what gets measured gets managed” is transformed into “what gets measured, connected and communicated, gets done”. By promoting transparency through open data and having businesses starting to mandate their suppliers to report, we start to develop a powerful mechanism through which transparency can evolve.

It won’t happen overnight but when you see the images in Bangladesh and Cambodia it should at least make everyone even more determined to try.

Brendan Howlin’s article was originally posted on website of the Department for Public Expenditure and Reform. It has been cross-posted here with his department’s permission. The announcement concerning Ireland’s decision to participate in OGP can be found here.

There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle…which does not live by secrecy.

― Joseph Pulitzer

As a former teacher I know that in the classroom creativity flourishes and learning is enhanced when openness and dialogue are supported and encouraged.

In my career as a political representative – both inside and outside Government – this vital lesson has been reinforced subsequently on very many occasions.

Now as the Minister responsible for overseeing reform I know that removing inefficiencies, improving democracy and generating sustainable growth and development is best achieved through greater openness, transparency and accountability.  Openness generates trust in government and paves the way for meaningful participation by citizens and more informed and better policy choices.

The economic crisis exposed a glaring lack of openness, transparency and indeed accountability in the Irish political landscape.  The Nyberg Report into the collapse of the Irish banking system is replete with references to how ‘herding’, ‘groupthink’ and resistance to contrarian views contributed to the severity of the crisis.

Just like in the classroom I know that good ideas can come from everywhere and my longstanding experience in many different contexts is that a more open and what can be termed a more ‘competitive’ or ‘contestable’ marketplace for public debate on policy issues affords greater opportunity for good ideas to challenge bad ones.

That is why since the formation of the 31^st Dáil my Government colleagues and I have been working energetically in pursuit of its open government objectives.  A wave of reforms envisaged in the Programme for Government is currently well underway:-

• Legislation to allow parliamentary committees carry out in inquiries into matters of public importance was published last week.
• The General Scheme of a Lobbying Regulation Bill was recently published and drafting of the Bill has commenced.
• I expect to bring comprehensive whistleblower legislation, the Protected Disclosures Bill to Government shortly to seek approval for its publication.
• The drafting of the Freedom of Information Bill restoring the legislation and extending it to all public bodies is at an advanced stage.
• A consultation paper on strengthening civil service accountability is being finalised.

We do, however, need to consider our next steps.  The UCD political scientist, Niamh Hardiman in the concluding contribution to 2012 book Irish Governance in Crisis which she edited, highlighted the urgent need to strengthen the learning capacity of Ireland’s political institutions ensuring that they not only learn from past mistakes but also better anticipate future needs and to act on them in a timely manner.

In order to provide further momentum to examination of this important area of government reform I am pleased to be able to announce that I have recently signed a letter of intent committing Ireland to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and it has now issued to the Co-Chairs of the OGP, the UK, Indonesia and its Civil Society Chair.

The OGP is a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.  The OGP commits governments to: increase the availability of information about government services; support civic partnership; implement the highest standards of professional integrity and to increase new technologies for openness and accountability.

Since it was launched in September 2011 by President Obama on the margins of the 66^th United Nations General Assembly in New York the OGP has grown to become a truly global initiative with almost 60 countries involved.

Undoubtedly there are diverse reasons as to why so many countries are choosing to participate in the OGP. However one common theme underpinning the OGP is the basic principle that openness, transparency, integrity and accountability of public administration is fundamental to effective public governance and the practice of democracy.

Ireland’s participation in the OGP would be expected to provide an international dimension to many existing national efforts in openness and reform.  It has a clear potential to contribute to Ireland’s economic recovery in view of the evidence that key elements of the open government agenda by strengthening public governance, and the effectiveness of the public institutions, is an important determinant of an economy’s sustainable long‐term growth potential.

The OGP will help to challenge us beyond national reform efforts and will not only track what we are doing but more importantly where, we can do more.

Having now issued the letter of intent to join the OGP I look forward to working with citizens, civil society interests and business on the development of Ireland’s first National Action Plan of commitment required for full OGP participation.

I hope that civil society and citizens at large will use the OGP as an opportunity not only to encourage greater transparency and to open the doors of government to greater scrutiny but to increase citizen engagement in the reform effort overall.

——–

Photo credit: Bridge Liffey by Visentico / Sento via Flickr

En el ámbito internacional, la Agenda para el Desarrollo Post-2015 es la siguiente estrategia para que los países miembros de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) persigan nuevos objetivos de desarrollo sustentables que retomen y rebasen a los actuales Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (ODM)[1].

En días pasados, la ciudad de Guadalajara fue sede de la conferencia regional “Realizando el futuro que queremos en América Latina y el Caribe: Hacia un Agenda para el Desarrollo Post-2015” organizada por la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) y la Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). La consulta se da en el marco de las discusiones del Panel de Alto Nivel (HLP, por sus siglas en inglés) de las Naciones Unidas para la Agenda Post-2015, que fue nombrado por el Secretario General de la ONU a fin de proponer los nuevos objetivos de desarrollo a partir de consultas globales.

La conferencia, propuesta por México e impulsada por la Embajadora Patricia Espinosa, miembro del Panel de Alto Nivel, fue la consulta pública más grande que se ha hecho hasta ahora en el mundo; no sólo por su enfoque regional, sino por la participación de más de 400 representantes de gobierno, sociedad civil, grupos de mujeres, jóvenes, pueblos indígenas, academia y sector privado de 24 países de América Latina y el Caribe.

Esta fue una consulta innovadora en el sentido de que se incluyeron 11 temas relevantes para la región latinoamericana, incluyendo  el tema de migración, pueblos indígenas, que hasta ahora habían sido relegados de la discusión internacional. Otro tema que se incluyó fue el tema de gobernanza.

La gobernanza debe tomarse en cuenta para los nuevos objetivos, no puede faltar. De hecho, en las recientes consultas globales, la gobernanza es la tercera preocupación mundial, después de la educación y la salud, para ser incluida en los objetivos de desarrollo sustentables.

En este sentido, Transparencia Mexicana (TM) y Transparencia Internacional (TI), han impulsado en este y en otros foros internacionales, que se reconozca el papel de la gobernanza y la lucha anti-corrupción como fuerzas críticas para eliminar la pobreza, ya que en los actuales ODM no se incluyeron. TM y TI buscan que los gobiernos incorporen a la nueva Agenda Post-2015 metas relacionadas con la gobernanza con base en los derechos humanos y en los principios de transparencia, rendición de cuentas, integridad y la participación ciudadana. Estos principios son piedra angular para que los gobiernos actúen de forma honesta y responsable en relación con los futuros objetivos de desarrollo.

La transparencia garantiza que los gobiernos y las empresas provean información abierta, actualizada, accesible y entendible sobre sus actividades, sus recursos y su gasto.

La rendición de cuentas permite crear mecanismos que aseguren que los poderes conferidos a los gobiernos y a las empresas sean usados efectivamente y que respondan por sus funciones.

La integridad fomenta el respeto al estado de derecho y a la promoción de la ética en gobiernos, compañías y comunidades.

La participación permite un espacio en donde los individuos debatan, conformen y monitoreen acciones que sean desarrolladas por el sector público o privado.

En este sentido, Transparencia Mexicana participó en la mesa de “Gobernanza, seguridad, acceso a la justicia y derechos humanos”, e incorporó estos temas a las “Recomendaciones de Guadalajara” que México impulsará en las próximas discusiones de la Agenda Post-2015, particularmente durante la reunión de la Asamblea General en septiembre.

México se ha sumado a la discusión de la Agenda Post-2015. Y, a partir de esta conferencia, también ha dado voz a los países de América Latina y el Caribe asumiendo un liderazgo en la región.  Por ello, México tiene la oportunidad de aprovechar esta coyuntura e incluir temas que le conciernen a Latinoamérica. La gobernanza es uno de ellos. Habrá que estar pendientes de lo que se negocia a nivel internacional, pero también a nivel nacional. No hay que olvidar que las agendas internacionales son un reflejo de los intereses nacionales. La pregunta en este momento es: ¿Está México preparado para asumir a la gobernanza y sus principios como parte de la agenda nacional y con ello, promover estos temas en la arena internacional?

Para ver el posicionamiento de Transparencia Internacional sobre la Agenda Post-2015, dar click aquí

Para ver el documento Compilación de los resultados de las discusiones y recomendaciones de Guadalajara, dar click aquí

Para más información sobre la Consulta Regional en Guadalajara, dar click aquí

Paola Palacios

Coordinadora de la Iniciativa para el Fortalecimiento de la Institucionalidad de los Programas Sociales (IPRO)

@IPROMx

www.programassociales.org.mx

by PPALACIOS on 04/29/2013

On September 26, 2012, to mark the first anniversary of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), UK Minister Francis Maude wrote on the Guardian Public Leaders Network: “Data is the raw material of the 21st century and a resource for a new generation of entrepreneurs. But transparency is not just about economics. Transparency shines light on underperformance and inefficiencies in public services. It allows citizens and the media to hold governments to account, strengthening civil society and building more open societies.”

The United Kingdom is a world leader in open government. Since May 2010, it has made almost 9,000 datasets of government information available at data.gov.uk, from school performance tables to pricing information about large government capital projects.

15 April 2013 was an important day in Tunisia and for its process to implement open government reforms to meet the Eligibility Criteria of the Open Government Partnership (OGP). For the first time, representatives from the public administration, civil society and the private sector met to inaugurate the activities of the new Tunisian Steering Committee on Open Government. The meeting* had three main objectives:  to commit to closer co-operation among all national stakeholders involved in open government reforms, to analyse Tunisia’s efforts to date, and finally to discuss the way forward for Tunisia in joining the Open Government Partnership.

The event allowed civil society organisations, such as OpenGov, members of the National Constituent Assembly, and all key public institutions to discuss Tunisia’s open government reform agenda and how to improve it in line with OECD principles and good practices. The discussions were lively and passionate, as these on-going reforms are at the heart of the issues raised by the Tunisian revolution and their attainment will be indicative of the degree of its success.

Tunisians also had the opportunity to learn more about similar initiatives in Egypt, Spain and Switzerland, as presented by the Peer Experts invited by the OECD to attend the Steering Committee meeting.  Linda Frey, Executive Director of the OGP Support Unit, clarified the accession process, the eligibility criteria and the next institutional events of the OGP community in which Tunisia could participate. The meeting ended with a discussion on how to best co-ordinate the drafting and the implementation of open government reforms at the national and local level in an inclusive way.

Subsequent meetings with a selection of the most relevant national stakeholders provided an excellent opportunity to better understand Tunisia’s on-going efforts in the areas related to open government reforms. It was impressive to see how many projects the Tunisian government is implementing in all major fields of democratic governance. The Action Plan for the Law on Access to Information and the new National Anti-corruption Strategy are just two of the several promising initiatives that will help to translate the principles of open government in concrete practices for the benefit of Tunisian citizens.

Meetings with Tunisia’s young, proactive and professional civil society were equally very inspirational and demonstrated the high level of social capital that the country can draw upon to strengthen its democracy. These enthusiastic and motivated citizens are actively contributing to the creation of a new Tunisia. There are many examples of this vitality, among them the non-governmental organisation IWatch is worth mentioning because of their recently held whistle-blower award and the platform they created to denounce cases of corruption. By implementing concrete projects, they are effectively influencing Tunisia’s reform agenda pushing the government to establish mechanisms to properly follow up on the reports and enact a whistle-blower protection law to safeguard the informants.

We noticed the same commitment and clear outlook from representatives of the private sector who are equally keen to seize the opportunity to engage in a greater policy dialogue with the government as offered by open government reforms, which will allow them to better transmit their priorities to relevant public officials. Among them, the need to develop Tunisia’s internal market was mentioned as fundamental in order to compensate for the fact that many companies rely mostly on foreign buyers.

Our mission ended with the clear impression that Tunisian citizens from the public administration, the private sector, and civil society are fully committed in working together to build a new, democratic, inclusive and open Tunisia. The challenge is to provide the necessary institutional and legal mechanisms and concrete opportunities for this collaboration to bear the expected fruits.

With the help of the Peer Experts, the OECD Secretariat will now consolidate and assess the data, information, and views gathered during the mission and will produce a final Review of Tunisia policies and practices in the area of Open Government. The Review will include in depth analyses and concrete recommendations for action based on OECD instruments, principles, and good practices. Through a series of technical workshops, the findings of the Review will be disseminated among Tunisia stakeholders (government, civil society, and private sector) and will contribute to the production of Tunisia’s OGP Action Plan.

Alessandro Bellantoni (alessandro.bellantoni@oecd.org) and Katharina Zuegel (katharina.zuegel@oecd.org), MENA-OECD Open Government Project

The MENA-OECD Open Government Project assists MENA countries to design and implement open government policies and join the Open Government Partnership. Within the framework of the MENA-OECD Governance Programme, the Project supports the identification and prioritization of reforms, align them with OECD instruments and good practices, and strengthen the capacities of national policy makers and practitioners to engage with civil society organizations and the private sector in the design and delivery of innovative public services.

*The meeting was facilitated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development within the framework of the MENA-OECD Open Government Project and was co-ordinated by the Ministry of Governance and Fight against Corruption.