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.

I am very proud of how far we have come, we couldn’t have done it without our civil society partners and we will need them even more going forward.

What I want to do here is go into a little more detail about how the UK process has actually happened. And I think this is important because we have been engaged in a different kind of conversation about how to implement open government. In doing so we are piloting a different way of making policy. Along the way I will reflect on a number of the challenges that we have faced which haven’t been picked-up in either of the previous posts.

At its very simplest, the process for creating the draft NAP has seen a small network of civil society organisations meet with two Cabinet Office civil servants from the Transparency Team on a weekly basis. These weekly meetings are used to discuss, debate and build a better understanding of the key elements of Open Government which will need to be included within the NAP. More recently they have been used to discuss, edit and amend the draft text of the NAP.

There are 7 components to the process which I would identify as being critical to its success so far. We haven’t got all (any?) of them totally right yet. The simple descriptions hide a lot of nuance, but at their baldest they represent a good picture of why the process has worked so far.

1) Having a clear way of explaining how what we are doing is different: the UK’s first NAP was produced through a fairly standard consultation process; government defined the issue, asked the questions, heard the responses and drafted the plan. The second NAP is being drafted by the civil society network and civil servants working together for submission to Ministers. The civil society network and civil servants are attempting to co-produce the draft NAP for political sign-off. Government isn’t identifying the key questions and commitments, but neither is civil society. We are engaging together to do so.

2) Regular meetings, owned by both sides: the regular meetings have been critical for building the relationship and trust between government and civil society. They have been co-chaired by both sides, with the agenda being jointly developed. It is during these meetings in particular that government has been able to demonstrate that it is trying to draft this NAP in a very different way.

3) Being very clear who we are: this is particularly important for the civil society organisations involved. We do not represent civil society en masse (who could?). We don’t claim to be more than a very small number of civil society organisations who have the energy, enthusiasm and knowledge of relevant areas of open government to make a contribution. We don’t even claim to be the only organisations with enthusiasm and knowledge in the area. The civil society organisations understand that the Cabinet Office, which has been leading the process from the government side, does not represent the whole of government and cannot make commitments which fall within the jurisdiction of other government departments. This will mean considerable effort on the side of those most fully engaged with the NAP process to develop on-going relationships with the relevant ministries.

4) Attempting to reach-out: this is the one critical component I think we have done least well. The civil society network began as being largely, but not exclusively, made up of international development and governance NGOs, with a small smattering of people interested in open data. We have managed to draw in a few more organisations and individuals working in the UK at national and local level. However, we have not got beyond the process and governance geeks to draw in organisations interested directly in public outcomes rather than government process.

On the government side it has largely been the Cabinet Office which has engaged. Other departments have joined some meetings, but these have been largely one-off and they therefore don’t properly understand how the process is different and what value it brings.

The next phase of the NAP development will have to see us reaching out much more widely, particularly to civil society organisations working with local communities on issues that matter to them. We will also have to ensure that key government departments engage more deeply as the commitments are firmed up.

5) Keeping the process itself open and transparent: while those who are part of the network can’t and don’t represent civil society (and haven’t had the resources to reach out widely), we can make sure that the process is open and transparent. Through using a blog set-up for the purpose and actively posting details of the latest status of the NAP, when and where meetings are and on what topic, and publishing minutes very soon after each meeting, we hope to demonstrate that this is an open process and to draw others in.

6) Using a combination of face-to-face meetings, email lists, document sharing platforms and teleconferencing facilities: even with a small, largely London based set of civil society organisations taking part, people find it difficult to attend meetings. A combination of methods has been important for ensuring that everyone is kept aware of what is happening, and giving them many ways to participate and contribute.

7) Having dedicated coordinators: the open government agenda is far wider than the mandate of any one organisation. From the civil society side this has proved a particular problem as it means no-one can justify the staff time to coordinate meetings and civil society responses to developments in the process. It is a measure of how important they feel this is that they have funded my organisation Involve to coordinate the network and, from the civil society side, the process. It certainly feels from my perspective that we couldn’t have got as far as we have without this key resource.

As both Graham and Ilaria acknowledge, this is challenging. The NAP will make firm, time-bound commitments for what the government is going to do to open up government. Different political perspectives will mean that the government will not do everything that civil society wants to do. However, given the nature of the process, government feels the NAP is going much further in some areas than it would do alone.

For those close to the centre of the process (on both the government and civil society side) this feels fine, the levels of trust are relatively high. For those much more distantly connected to the process the same is not true. I suspect this is because, different as the process is trying to be, it still looks like a government consultation to anyone not following it closely. It is an indication of these challenges that the NAP, which was due to be published on 24^th April, has not yet emerged from the government machine. It will do, government and civil society will continue to work towards a shared set of actions for open government, and the plan will be stronger as a result.

The compass of transparency (www.magellanopa.it/bussola) is an automated online instrument that gives the citizens the possibility to monitor, in real time, the implementation of all the data and information requirements imposed by Italian law on the websites of public administrations.

The aim is to support the government, through the direct involvement of citizens in the continuous improvement of the quality of online and digital services. It is a system of rules, processes and technologies that combines the three basic principles of Open Government: Transparency of public administrations, citizen participation and collaboration. The initiative focuses on the continuous improvement of transparency compliance in more than 20,000 Italian public administrations, with returns in terms of increased efficiency, reduction of corruption and lower costs across the whole public sector.

The heart of the system is a validation mechanism, composed by software sensors and mathematical algorithms, with the ability to analyze public administration web sites in both real-time and at certain intervals. The analysis is performed by comparing the found data and information with contents defined and standardized by the laws of transparency and guidelines on websites. Data are then collected in a data warehouse that, through dedicated interfaces, is able to provide different types of users with results on the transparency compliance of all institutional web sites.

A public administration can perform a real-time analysis of its website through the “Check the site” functionality or compare its website to the ones managed by other P.A.s, finding in them, useful information or ideas to increase its level of transparency.

The Compass contains a set of ranking features between P.A.s as far as transparency of the websites is concerned. Thanks to the ranking features, the P.A.s are pushed to get more transparent and have a better performance than other PAs, in this way accelerating the process of continuous improvement stimulating also a healthy competition.

All these functionalities can be used by the citizen, who in this way becomes an active actor who encourages administrations to become more open.  The citizen is engaged in the continuous improvement of transparency also by logging into the Compass through a social network login (Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Google+) and expressing, in a completely anonymous way, opinions about the quality of the published data and information. The opinions of the users are stored in the Compass and immediately made available to the public, achieving a “friendly” citizen control which pushes the P.A.s to get better and to reduce the possible distortions of the automatic engine. In this contest, the social friendly control can also be seen as new collaborative relationship between citizens and administrations, becoming a really efficient tool.

Through the “graphic dashboard” functionality, everyone (citizens, researchers, journalists) can perform a real-time monitoring of how the transparency process is proceeding at national and regional level. The statistics can be organized geographically or by typology, in order to be useful in many different situations – e.g. when comparing the transparency of regional PAs’ websites. Moreover, having the complete and continuously updated picture about transparency is helpful to define the most effective public policies to accelerate the transparency process.

The “Compass of Transparency” has been designed and developed so that it can be completely and easily transferred into different administrative contexts, e.g. in other countries. This is due to the simple methodology, in terms of rules, processes and technologies, the Compass is based on.

]]> http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2013/05/the-compass-of-transparency-an-italian-instrument-for-open-government/feed/ 0 http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2013/05/the-compass-of-transparency-an-italian-instrument-for-open-government/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/opengovpartnershipblog/~3/vw7Dyy-GU7A/ http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/2013/05/civil-society-newsletter-april-2013/#comments Thu, 09 May 2013 10:53:42 +0000 Blog Editor http://blog.opengovpartnership.org/?p=3006 CSC Newsletter April 2013 No. 7 by emilenemartinez17

REGISTER for this webinar here:
https://docs.google.com/a/globalintegrity.org/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dG84UWp3cE9LeWlrTEFPYnZDR0s2T2c6MA

JOIN the Webinar here (login 5 minutes before the scheduled time): http://worldbankva.adobeconnect.com/ogpweb/

Date & Time
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
10:00 – 11:00 AM Washington DC | 6:00-7:00 PM Tbilisi (14:00 GMT)
Asset Disclosures
Financial Disclosure, also called income and asset declarations and interests declarations – refers to the legislation and the corresponding system put in place for public officials to periodically submit information on their assets, income, business activities, interests, etc.

Disclosure is proving to be a very powerful mechanism for two main reasons: on one side, it is a transparency tool that promotes public official’s accountability and may increase trust in public institutions; on the other side, it is a mechanism that may provide information and even evidence for corruption investigations and prosecutions. Very few mechanisms combine both the prevention and detection sides of corruption, which is why financial disclosure is increasingly standing out and getting closer attention.

Over the years, the World Bank Financial Market Integrity (FMI) Unit has compiled and analyzed information on financial disclosures systems in 176 countries. Using FMI’s experience in this area, this webinar will present global and regional trends on the main components of disclosure systems, good practices, and discuss the main issues to take into consideration when implementing or reforming a financial disclosure system. This webinar will also feature Mr. Irakli Kotetishvili, Director of the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia. Mr. Kotetishvili will present on Georgia’s Asset Declaration system and share experience on the challenges and lessons learned with the management of this transparency and accountability mechanism.

Presented by
Ivana Maria Rossi (World Bank)
Irakli Kotetishvili (Director of the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia)
–

The Open Government Partnership webinar series is an initiative of the OGP Networking Mechanism to encourage peer learning and knowledge sharing on critical open government issues among civil society, government, and private sector participants. It is hosted by the World Bank Institute

The Open Government Partnership’s (OGP’s) commitment to a partnership between government and civil society at international and national levels and its accent on domestic as opposed to international accountability distinguishes it from many international initiatives promoting open government.

As a September 2012 survey of civil society organizations (CSOs) engaged in OGP shows, there is widespread recognition that OGP represents a great opportunity for leveraging transparency and accountability in countries around the world. All the organizations are energized by the early victories that have been achieved, such as the new Access to Information Law in Brazil and greater transparency of military and police budgets in the Philippines. Most also acknowledge that OGP has helped to bring together civil society advocates working across multiple sectors, helping to break through the silos that often undermine civil society effectiveness. But many CSOs are still cautious about OGP, particularly about how partnerships with governments will play out at the country level.

What can we learn from the experience of the eight founding countries about effective CSO-government collaboration?

At the international level, the partnership between CSOs and governments on the steering committee is working well. The two parties’ candid and often vigorous discussions—as well as their willingness to challenge one another (between and within caucuses)—has significantly refined the overarching concept and policies driving the initiative.

CSO participation in OGP at the inter-national level, in turn, has supported stronger country-level processes and outcomes in many of the eight founding countries. As Juan Pardons, CEO of the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness and a colleague on the steering committee, argues, Mexican civil society was initially disappointed by the lack of consultation and weak commitments in the initial Mexican action plan. But having Mexican civil society and government representatives on the steering committee – together with strong CSOs on the ground – empowered reformers in the government. The result was a redrafted, stronger Mexican action plan, which included exciting progress on consumer protection and greatly expanded access to school bud-get information.

Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University and a steering committee member from US civil society, tells a similar story.  OGP’s design process offered an opportunity to marshal pressure on the US government to close the gap between strong open government policy commitments and slow or weak implementation of them. The US action plan ultimately reflected several CSO priorities, such as US participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative.

The key to these successes was a sophisticated insider-outsider strategy adopted by experienced activists from countries with robust civil societies. The test we faced as CSOs on OGP’s Steering Committee was to help incubate a powerful idea while staying connected to our civil society partners. Pardinas and Blanton, among others, avoided this potential problem by combining active engagement on the steering committee with building or maintaining strong relationships to local civil society coalitions. In Mexico, a new coalition was assembled; in the United States an existing coalition—OpenTheGovernment.org—was adapted for this purpose. How might these initial experiences translate into effective civil society engagement in the broader set of OGP countries?

First, our experiences to date show that productive collaboration between governments and CSOs in OGP is certainly possible. Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, have included civil society in the action plan drafting committee. Mexico and the United States have multi-stakeholder teams at both the national and sector levels driving action plan development. Still, in many countries government has yet to and the appropriate balance of roles and is more hesitant about working with civil society. This challenge is as great in several European countries as in Africa and Latin America.

Second, a critical ally role is not an entirely new concept, particularly for organizations in countries with a vigorous civil society. But in many parts of the world, where strictly adversarial roles between governments and CSOs have been the norm, or where civil society is less robust, such a dual role for civil society will be quite new and challenging.

Third, and perhaps the greatest challenge for both civil society and government going forward, will be reaching out within participating countries to involve those who live outside urban areas, speak in local dialects, and have little access to the Internet. Both governments and CSOs will have to dig deep to transform open government into a cause that will galvanize the participation of the poorest and drive real development.

OGP’s progress to date in piloting a new approach to CSO-government collaboration makes me optimistic that we will meet these challenges at the country level.

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

Expositoras

Gabriela Segovia Cantú

 Directora General de Coordinación de Políticas de Acceso

 Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información y Protección de Datos, México.

y

Mariana Llona Rosa

Secretaria de Gestión Pública de la Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, Perú

Miércoles, 15 de Mayo, 2013
10:00 AM – 12:00 PM EST

Idioma: Español

REGISTRASE para este Webinar AQUÍ

Patrocinado por: el Mecanismo de Networking de la Alianza por el Gobierno Abierto  (administrado por Global Integrity) y el Instituto del Banco Mundial.

Descripción:

A más de un año de haberse formado la Alianza por el Gobierno Abierto, varios países de América Latina se han sumado como miembros a esta iniciativa, demostrando avances en la articulación de diversos actores en la formulación de los planes de acción nacionales. Durante esta conferencia en línea, Gabriela Segovia Cantú, Directora General de Coordinación de Políticas de Acceso del IFAI y Mariana Llona Rosa, Secretaria de Gestión Pública de la Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros compartirán las experiencias de México y Perú en torno a la Alianza por el Gobierno Abierto, respectivamente. Se hará especial énfasis al diseño institucional, actores involucrados, los procesos de consulta llevados a cabo y lecciones aprendidas durante el proceso.

Después de sus presentaciones, se abrirá un espacio de preguntas y respuestas en el cual los participantes podrán realizar preguntas o compartir información relacionada a la situación nacional de cada uno de sus países en la agenda de gobierno abierto.

<graycol.gif>Reseña Gabriela Segovia Cantú
Licenciada en Economía por el Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México y Maestra en Administración Pública por la Universidad de Harvard. Se incorporó en octubre de 2011 al Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información y Protección de Datos (IFAI) como Directora General de Coordinación de Políticas de Acceso, un área de reciente creación que tiene como propósito diseñar y promover políticas de transparencia proactiva. Ha trabajado en el Poder Ejecutivo a nivel federal, estatal  y municipal como analista y consultora para el desarrollo de políticas públicas de  desarrollo social, de política energética, de finanzas públicas estatales y de desarrollo urbano.
En el Poder Legislativo Federal trabajó como asesora en las comisiones de Vigilancia de la Contaduría Mayor de Hacienda, de Programación, Presupuesto y Cuenta Pública, de Gobernación y Puntos Constitucionales y de Desarrollo Social. Ha sido profesora de microeconomía, políticas públicas, evaluación social de proyectos y de finanzas públicas en universidades públicas y privadas en México.

<graycol.gif>Reseña Mariana Llona Rosa
Socióloga de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú con Maestría en Ciencia Política, especialización en Políticas Públicas y Gestión Pública. Especializada en el análisis y diseño de políticas públicas, temas de desarrollo local y regional y participación ciudadana. Posee veinte años de experiencia en el campo de la promoción del desarrollo, habiendo desarrollado sólidas competencias en la dirección de programas, incluyendo la planificación estratégica, la gestión de recursos humanos y financieros, así como el ciclo completo de proyectos.
Ha realizado consultorías e investigaciones relacionadas a los temas de desarrollo local, micro y pequeña empresa y políticas vinculadas a la reforma del servicio civil. Ha sido miembro del consejo directivo de DESCO, asesora del Vice Ministerio de Promoción del Empleo del MTPE y miembro del equipo de la Gerencia de Políticas de Gestión de Recursos Humanos de SERVIR. Cuenta con experiencia en el diseño de proyectos, políticas, planificación y programación de actividades con metodologías participativas y en el fortalecimiento de capacidades de líderes en desarrollo económico y gestión local. Actualmente se desempeña en el cargo de Secretaria de Gestión Pública de la Presidencia de Consejo de Ministros.

Para PARTICIPAR en la sesión del día 15 de Mayo de 2013, por favor acceder al siguiente enlace 5 minutos antes de la hora programada para el inicio del Webinar: http://worldbankva.adobeconnect.com/ogpweb/

On April 17, 2012, Brazil hosted the first High-Level Conference of the Open Government Partnership (OGP)—a partnership that grew in a mere six months from eight founding countries to 55 participating governments. As I write, the number of participants has grown to 58 countries, and I am certain it will rise again by the time this article is published.

Brazil was one of the founding countries and the first co-chair of the initiative, side by side with the United States, because OGP’s rationale and its objectives converged with the government directive of transparency implemented at the very beginning of the first term of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government in 2003. So in January 2011, when the White House approached the Office of the Comptroller General, which I head, about the Brazilian government’s interest in this new idea, we were immediately authorized by President Dilma Rousseff to join the endeavor.

Since then, and with support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other Brazilian ministries, the participation and the commitments to be adopted under OGP have coincided with our government’s aims. OGP has augmented goals and projects already under way or in initial phases of development.

I imagine that Brazil’s experience is not so different from other OGP member countries, because the partnership was created to build on transparency and good governance reforms being carried out domestically—to greater or lesser degree—by governments around the world. The project has great appeal: it is a global challenge for government and civil society stakeholders to address, very directly, the concept of democracy—modern democracy. It has provoked positive reactions in many countries, even in nations where previously there had not been much engagement with the issue of open government.

On the other hand, there is little doubt that civil society pressure influenced some governments to join the project, and this is one of the benefits of civil society organizations’ participation in the initiative and on OGP’s Steering Committee. Another important aspect of OGP is the way it highlights innovative projects in developing and developed countries. For example, Brazil’s online Transparency Portal publishes expenses incurred by the government on a daily basis in easily understandable terms, enabling anyone to monitor budget execution and help prevent corruption. The portal also publishes the paychecks of all public officials, from President Rousseff to the humblest public employee. It shows that there is no monopoly on cutting-edge solutions for common governance issues. This type of innovation has encouraged a wide range of countries to join the partnership.

An equally important aspect of OGP is that it is a voluntary government commitment. The fact that it is non-mandatory makes it markedly different from other international initiatives, such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which requires governments to adopt measures to increase transparency in the public sector and to engage society and the private sector to prevent and fight corruption. At the same time, OGP differs from other international mechanisms in that no distinction is made between developed or emerging countries and underdeveloped or economically modest nations.

Brazil’s early and active participation in the partnership has encouraged other countries—both emerging economies and more economically modest nations—to join OGP. The possibility of exchanging experiences and sharing learning seems more feasible in this environment. And the leadership roles of countries like Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, and South Africa, all of which are on OGP’s steering committee, sent an important signal to countries in the South that the playing field is changing.

Having said this, I would equally stress that there is a wide distance among countries on the steering committee and in the partnership: they are not, by any means, a homogeneous group. Some of them, usually referred to as emerging economies, such as Brazil, South Africa, and Russia, are not necessarily emerging democracies. Either their democratic institutions are already beyond the stage of “emerging,” or they are not yet democratically robust, despite their nations’ economic strength. For OGP, promoting solid democratic institutions is what counts most.

Fortunately, with the support of UNDP and OECD, countries of the so-called Arab Spring (Middle Eastern and North African nations), such as Tunisia, seem to be willing to prepare their institutions for future adherence to OGP.

OGP has barely completed its first year. It might be premature to make any thorough evaluation of its results. It is, however, clear that OGP has been able to generate some concrete changes in attitudes in such sensible government areas as transparency and openness. And this accomplishment surely deserves special attention, even outright celebration.

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