UNA NUEVA OPORTUNIDAD?

Silvana  Fumega
@SilvanavF

Luego de muchos proyectos y años de espera, el día 30 de abril, cuando se reúna la comisión de asunto constitucionales, el tan postergado debate sobre la adopción de una ley de acceso a la información pública en Argentina tendrá una nueva oportunidad.

Dicha comisión, a fines de 2004, bajo la presidencia de la entonces senadora Fernández de Kirchner, introdujo modificaciones al proyecto de ley que ya contaba con media sanción. Las criticas a dichas modificaciones fueron tan severas que imposibilitó la aprobación de la ley por parte de la cámara de origen

Desde ese entonces, muchos proyectos han perdido estado parlamentario y muchos otros siguen vigentes. De todos modos, en la primer semana de abril un nuevo proyecto obtuvo una gran repercusión (en contraste con otros que se encuentran a la espera de su tratamiento). La relevancia del proyecto viene dada por la cercanía de la autora (la Diputada Conti) con el Poder Ejecutivo nacional.

La inclusión del tema en la agenda de la reunión de la comisión de asuntos constitucionales, a fines del mes de abril, abre una nueva posibilidad para la sanción de una ley de acceso a la información publica[1]. En este sentido, Argentina se encuentra muy retrasada en comparación con los países de la región y del mundo, ya que en la actualidad mas de 90 países cuentan con leyes que regulan el mencionado derecho.

Si bien esta nueva oportunidad merece ser celebrada, no hay que dejar de lado los considerandos del proyecto. Mas allá de su pobre redacción, algunos puntos merecen ser destacados (tanto por su significado positivo o negativo).

En primer lugar, es destacable que la ley considere como sujetos obligados a los tres poderes del Estado. Incluso hoy en día muchas de las leyes que se encuentran en vigencia limitan su aplicación al Poder Ejecutivo. Siguiendo con el tema de los sujetos obligados, otra inclusión que debería ser observada es la de los entes privados o sin fines de lucro. En este caso, la ley debería ser mas explicita en cuanto a la inclusión de estos sujetos solo en lo referente a aportes recibidos por parte de algún organismo del Estado. Si bien es solo una aclaración, seria importante que se incluya en el texto de la ley.

Uno de los puntos mas importantes para la futura implementación exitosa de esta regulación es la de contar con un órgano garante, con autonomía e idoneidad, para que interceda en casos de disputas en torno al cumplimiento de la ley. El mencionado proyecto solo prevé la intervención del Poder Judicial. Esto ultimo no facilita la agilidad y simplicidad en las resoluciones de las disputas. Este es un punto clave que debería contar con un debate por parte de los legisladores y especialistas en la materia para arribar a una solución que permita garantizar el derecho, así como también respectar las limitaciones que imponen los arreglos constitucionales en relación a la creación de un organismo autónomo.

Por otra parte, la simpleza es una cualidad que debería ser respetada en todos las instancias en las que el interesado deba relacionarse con el Estado para obtener la información. Esto es relevante desde el pedido hasta la resolución de conflictos, como se mencionó anteriormente. Es por ello que la necesidad de utilizar un formulario escrito que será entregado por la autoridad requerida no parece ser la mejor de las opciones. Actualmente, debería considerarse (como se lo hace en muchos países del mundo) la posibilidad que los pedidos puedan hacerse en forma electrónica, por diferentes medios (emails, etc). Aun mas, a la hora de la implementación debería crearse una plataforma digital que reciba y tramite los pedidos (así como que permita su seguimientos, así como explorar la información entregada ante otros pedidos). Este tipo de herramientas, hoy en día, no debería pensarse como una sofisticación sino una herramienta necesaria y de uso corriente[2].

Es relevante, a su vez, que se incluya la necesidad de notificar a los usuarios en el caso que el sujeto obligado quiera hacer uso de la extensión del plazo para la entrega de información. Dicha extensión deberá ser, asimismo, debidamente fundamentada.

Otro punto a tener en cuenta es la necesidad de incluir en la ley provisiones para la publicación parcial de información cuando un documento contenga elementos exceptuados. De esa manera, la información no exenta debería ser entregada al solicitante. Algunos de estos puntos (y otros) se pueden fácilmente extraer de la ley modelo[3] de la OEA, en la cual se plantea los lineamientos básicos para toda ley de acceso a la información publica.

Finalmente, un punto llamativo (aunque no esta relacionado con las provisiones del proyecto) es la ausencia de toda referencia al concepto de “transparencia”. Si bien este punto no afecta la calidad de los artículos incluidos, podría llegar a interpretarse como un señal negativa. En este sentido, es de esperar que solo haya sido una omisión y que en nada refleje la intención del oficialismo en relación al respeto del derecho de acceso a la información.

Una nueva posibilidad de debate no solo debe ser celebrada sino también utilizada por las organizaciones de las sociedad civil y otros defensores del respeto al derecho de acceder a la información producida y resguardada por el Estado. 

Se trata de una nueva oportunidad que ojalá no sea desaprovechada. 

---

[1] La posibilidad de contar con una ley de acceso a la información publica ha sido un tema recurrente durante, al menos, las ultimas dos décadas (pasando por el caso Tiscornia en 1996 y las promesas electorales de la Alianza a comienzos de este nuevo siglo).

[2] A la hora de diseñar estas plataformas es imperioso que no se limite el uso de la ley por medio de la inclusión de números de identificación u otros procedimientos que hicieran imposible el pedido de información si no se es ciudadano (o si el usuario no reside en el lugar donde se encuentra el sujeto obligado)

[3] http://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/acceso_informacion_ley_modelo.asp

WORKING TOGETHER: some considerations coming from the City of Buenos Aires.

Silvana Fumega

@SilvanaVF

Together with a team of researchers from Brazil  (Ricardo Matheus and Manuela Ribeiro) and Uruguay (Fabrizio Scrollini), we decided to embark on a project on Open Government Data policies in local governments in 3 important cities in the Southern Cone of Latin America: Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Sao Paulo.

In that context, I spent 3 weeks in Buenos Aires during June 2013 in order to gather information to build the study case. The most relevant aspect that I recall (possibly due to the influence of my current PhD research…) is related to the civil society actors surrounding the Buenos Aires Open Data initiative[1].

Independent developers as well as journalists, academics and members of transparency-oriented NGOs have just started to become aware of the need to collaborate with each other to better access and use open data for different purposes. The events held since 2009 in the City of Buenos Aires have contributed to bring these actors closer together. However, after several candid interviews and informal talks with many relevant actors, I realized that even though the actors with very dissimilar backgrounds and areas of expertise have managed, in some cases, to start collaborating with each other, to achieve a long-term sustainable partnership was not portrayed as a walk in the park.

One of the main obstacles for that partnership is the difficulty of finding a common language between developers and non-technical organizations. Short-term funding is also a major issue for many projects, as well as the need of NGOs for "in house" developers.

On the bright side, despite all these obstacles a small community has started to emerge around the use of open government data. In that sense, some projects have just begun to be implemented with limited resources but with a lot of dialogue among several stakeholders with different backgrounds and interests.

One of the examples of that work is the app[2] from Huesped Foundation – and NGOs aimed at fighting HIV/AIDS. I participated in one of the meeting held in the Government Lab[3] provided by the General Direction of Information and Open Government. In that meeting, members of Huesped Foundation together with developers (some of them volunteering their time) and public officials discussed, in a friendly and informal manner, the available resources and the possibilities to overcome the obstacles.

A few months after that meeting, they launched an application to promote awareness about centers for HIV free testing and for distribution of condoms. This initiative was developed without an allocated budget but with the assistance of independent developers and the expertise of the Office of Information and Open Government. This type of collaboration could be taken, in the future, as an example of what can be done with limited resources but with an efficient and productive collaboration from several actors interested in the topic.

---

[1] More info about the study case: http://www.opendataresearch.org/content/2013/573/opening-cities-case-city-buenos-aires-and-some-other-general-reflections-open

[2] http://vimeo.com/75593112

More info (in Spanish) http://digital.buenosaires.gob.ar/trabajo-en-equipo-donde-huesped-org/

The app: http://donde.huesped.org.ar

[3] The Gov Lab is a physical space in the Information and Open Government Office. This space was created to host meetings, every day of the year, among public officials, developers, NGOs members, academics, and other actors.

More info (in Spanish) http://digital.buenosaires.gob.ar/te-estamos-buscando-laboratorio-de-gobierno-de-la-ciudad/

OPENING CITIES: THE CASE OF THE CITY OF BUENOS AIRES AND SOME OTHER GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON OPEN GOVERNMENT DATA INITIATIVES

Silvana Fumega

@SilvanavF

Over the past two decades the way in which individuals access government information has changed. The principles behind Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation and Open Government Data (OGD) initiatives are similar, however the tools and the formats in which that information is published have varied. Open Government Data initiatives introduce a new way to access and use the data produced and held by governments.

In this context, several local governments in Latin America, and around the world, have begun to implement OGD policies. It is often argued that local governments are the closest level of government to the people and, in that sense, they can produce greater changes to people’s lives. They are also frequently at the forefront of openness and participation experiments.

Following those ideas, together with a team of researchers from Brazil  (Ricardo Matheus and Manuela Ribeiro) and Uruguay (Fabrizio Scrollini), we decided to embark on a project on Open Government Data policies in local governments in 3 important cities in the Southern Cone of Latin America: Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Sao Paulo. This research, "Opening Cities: Open Data in Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Sao Paulo”, is part of a broader project on the impact of open data policies in developing countries (ODDC) supported by the Web Foundation and IDRC.

In the case of Buenos Aires, the capital city of Argentina, the OGD policy officially started in the first months of 2012. The introduction of the topic in the policy agenda there can be awarded to a combination of three elements: 1) "entrepreneurs" within the public sector, 2) as well as outside it, along with 3) a stream of ideas, which was emerging in some countries of the northern hemisphere. All came together in late 2011 when the local elections produced a window of opportunity[1] to introduce these new ideas.

One of the main features of Open Government Data policy in the City of Buenos Aires is the decentralized nature of the responsibilities towards the disclosure of government data. The responsibilities and "ownership" of the data are under a decentralized process: each agency is responsible for authorizing the release of the data they produce. This type of measure took some pressure off from the shoulders of the newly created agency (Office of Information and Open Government) and, therefore, left some room for this new unit to focus on other aspect of the policy implementation. However, it is necessary to point out, following John Wonderlich, that this type of initiatives could be simply dismissed or ignored by agencies that decide not to release information[2]. 

The efforts of the Office of Information and Open Government have been focused on two main areas: "Data Generation" and "Open Government Culture" (content’s management). Most of the resources of this agency are focused on the latest of these areas, aimed at building capacity and creating a community of users. This is so as greater demand for government data also gives the Office Information and Open Government more bargaining power with other agencies to demand greater amounts of data to be published via the OGD portal.

Even before the establishment of the General Direction of Information and Open Government, a community around OGD started to be created. Around 2009 a small number of developers and members of civil society organizations in Argentina were already working on these topics (at the beginning with few available resources but investing many hours of work to clean and to access data that were not yet released in reusable formats). Over the past few years Open Government Data has gained popularity and became a “mainstream” topic among developers and organizations working on government transparency and access to public information. These actors play a crucial role in OGD policies, as not every citizen is eager to engage with transparency initiatives (due to a lack of interest, skills or resources). Thus, the existence and capacity of technically skilled intermediaries is likely to be an important determining factor for the success of open data interventions.

Some of the product that civil society actors have created are published in the Buenos Aires Data website <data.buenosaires.gob.ar>. This portal contains 49 applications^[3], which were built using the data provided in the portal (some of them are results of the competitions and events organized by the Direction of Information and Open Government). These applications are based on data from a variety of topics, such as education, transit, culture, and security, among others. Despite this variety and the actors that have been involved in creating these applications, the use of OGD is still limited^[4] (not only in the case of the City of Buenos Aires but in most of these initiatives).

In more general terms, Open Government Data policies, by relying on proactive publication of information tend not to encourage confrontation between civil society actors and governments, as it could be the case with some information requests under FOI laws when governments are not willing to release the requested information. This proactive disclosure of information, in the context of open data policies, might partially explain why- unlike FOI laws- many of these policies were driven (or at least not resisted) by actors within the public sector. In global terms, while the FOI diffusion took several years, local and national governments in many countries quickly adopted Open Data policies. This is the case of the City of Buenos Aires where the Chief of Government provided an extensive support to this policy.

At the stage of implementation, information disclosed in the framework of open data initiatives in cities is focused, often very successfully, on providing information about city services such as transport, cultural activities. Examples of this disclosure are the 70 datasets provided by the City of Buenos Aires in their Open Data portal. Yet, in terms of one of the main Open Data goals, “transparency towards accountability”, they don't seem to be as successful. In that sense, the city of Buenos Aires is part of the rule and not the exceptions.

In that same line, OGD portals are among the most common commitments made by governments to get closer to the idea of Open Government, as those portals can provide an appearance of government transparency. However, in practice, Open Government Data initiatives in cities seem to be closer to the idea proclaimed under the “smart cities” label than to the Open Government principles. A city can offer new ways for people to access public services they deliver but it doesn’t mean that they provide the information and institutional channels for citizens and organizations to know how those services are funded, implemented (among the vast amount of information a city- or any other government- should disclose to get closer to the idea of an open government).

For a local (or any other government) a focus on the effective and timely disclosure of politically important data is the only way to really get closer to the idea of Open Government. However the focus on a proactive approach and the potential offered by technology seduces cities towards taking the option(s) that deliver minimal advantages in the terms of transparency and accountability. Therefore whilst the potential and promise of Open Government Data is enormous, its impact in terms of achieving Open Government at this point in time, it is still limited.

As a summary, if OGD portals are tools aimed to achieve greater government openness, there is still much work to be done by governments as well as civil society actors. In that sense, it is left to be seen if this policy (in the City of Buenos Aires as well as in other cities and countries) will scale and what kind of real impact will produce in the long run, or if only a few skilled actors will take advantage of these public resources.

---

[1] Policy entrepreneurs, according to Kingdon, are able to identify and use "windows of opportunity" to promote changes in policy environments. (Kingdon 1984) In this context, as in other areas, opportunities must be early recognized in order to achieve the desired outcomes.

[2] Wonderlich, J. (2011) Obama's Open Government Directive, Two Years On: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/12/07/obamas-open-government-directive-two-years-on/ 

^[3] http://concursos.buenosaires.gob.ar/buenos-aires-apps/apps/

^[4] Moreover, the agency in charge of implementing the OGD initiative is not always aware of the actual use of the data by third parties (the more datasets and users, the more difficult to track every application or report) Sometimes, only when a problem occurs with one of the datasets, the administrators of the OGP portal could become aware of the users of such data.

OGP13 OR THE FESTIVAL OF TRANSPARENCY AND DIALOGUE. BUT, WAS IT REALLY?

Silvana Fumega

@SilvanavF

During the last week of October, the Open Government Partnership welcomed academics, advocates, and government officials to its summit meeting in London, to discuss the current situation - and the next steps - in the 62 countries that are now involved in this initiative[1].

The passage of a week presents a perfect time to recount and reflect on all the activities of #OGP13[2].

To start the week, some of the members of the #ODDC[3] projects, including myself, met to exchange lessons learned and challenges faced in each of their own projects. Academics from Asia and Latin America explained the different stages of their projects and discussed issues with specialists such as Toby Mendel, Maurice McNaughton and Tim Davies.

During the afternoon, government officials and transparency advocates from Latin America joined with regional specialists from multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, IADB, and IDRC for a preparatory meeting organized by the London School of Economics, OGP Civil Society Hub and World Bank Institute. This focused on the challenges the region is facing in terms of open government. All member countries reported different types of involvement (information, consultation and participation) in reference to the development of their national action plans[4] as part of their OGP membership.

On Wednesday, members of civil society from around the world met to discuss the challenges encountered in trying to hold governments accountable for their actions and, in particular, their commitments to the OGP process. (See tweets using the #CSOday hashtag). During the last part of the afternoon, the preliminary meetings of each of the OGP working groups took place.[5]

Finally, last Thursday, the formal summit meeting was officially launched by UK Prime Minister David Cameron. He made a welcome commitment to publishing a registry of beneficial ownership, which enables people trying to trace which companies really own what; the secrecy around company ownership has been found to facilitate tax evasion, corruption and money laundering, so it is easy to see how this concrete action should contribute to better governance. Two days full of discussions and presentations, including the launches of 5 working groups, followed that first plenary session.

If someone looked at the timetable of the whole week, they might think it was a festival of transparency and dialogue. But, was it really? Since it is impossible for me to mention all the interesting discussions and presentations[6] during #OGP13 week, I will simply highlight some of the messages and ideas that kept resurfacing in different moments of the week.

1) Participants highlighted the need for joint working spaces between civil society and government, such as those created at OGP events, to serve not only the formulation of the national action plans, but also to monitor compliance with the commitments, and the results generated from compliance. Co-evaluation, as well as co-creation.

2)   The importance of pushing for more ambitious national action plans arose frequently. Too often governments have not committed to actions that will really challenge them. These commitments are also frequently too disconnected from actions that will really help people in their everyday lives. ‘Real commitments for real people’ was the message civil society groups kept pushing to governments.

3)   The OGP summits provide an international platform for governments and CSOs to exhibit their achievements and how they may have worked together, which can also serve to inspire others towards further improvement – a ‘race to the top’. The summits are a unique opportunity for civil society and the governments to discuss issues in a condition of parity with each other. The international exposure helps governments and civil society to advance the agenda, but the parity aimed for at the summit meetings does not necessarily translate into local processes after participants return home. The summits are a place for dialogue, and maybe that is the best the OGP itself can enable, with the rest depending on the actors involved.

4)    It was mentioned repeatedly that the requirements countries must meet to join the OGP are so vague and low that countries with low levels of commitment to transparency are able to join in pursuit of a “transparency” seal of approval. This is particularly a concern in relation to low and middle-income countries seeking to put a ‘tick’ in the checkboxes of donor organisations.

5)    In terms of datasets made ‘open’ by governments, there is a clear need to set standards to enable measurement of the initiatives and to produce a clear comparative assessment of different countries.

6)    It is also necessary for governments to commit to the disclosure of more politically important and useful data. To achieve such disclosures, it was clear to all participants that it is necessary to enact legislation on the topic. There was discussion as to whether such legislation should be part of an update of the Right to Information (or Freedom of Information) legislation already in place in many countries, or if the approach of enacting a separate statute is more desirable.

7)  There was a clear disconnection between some of the different working groups and the members of those working groups. In particular, there was a lack of joint work between two clearly connected groups, those working on the Right to Information and those working on Open Data.

8)   A constant topic of discussion that was not on the formal agenda was people’s concerns about surveillance and privacy. Aruna Roy, who works with the rural poor in India, admirably raised this issue in a plenary session, when she questioned US Secretary of State John Kerry and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding the levels of surveillance and interference with people’s privacy being carried out by the US and UK in what are supposed to be open societies.

9)  One of the issues that arose, but which was not discussed in depth, was the idea that if the OGP is not working for ‘us’ (civil society groups, in particular) what should we do about it?

To sum up, the OGP presents a good opportunity to make progress in terms of opening up governments to the people they serve, especially in terms of the dialogue between civil society and governments. However, even if ‘Transparency is an idea whose time has come’, as UK co-chair of the OGP Francis Maude[7] affirmed several times, the concrete actions are still missing and there is a lot of work to be done for transparency to become a reality. It would be a useful start if governments acknowledged that transparency is not an absolute good, and that there is a difference between enabling people to see the engine of government working, and sharing politicians’ grip on the levers of power.

---

[1] I would like to acknowledge and thank Andrew Ecclestone and Rick Snell for their insightful comments on this post.

[2] People’s tweets can be found via the #OGP13 hashtag


[3] Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries is a multi-country, multi-year study led by the World Wide Web Foundation to understand how open data is being put to use in different countries and contexts across the developing world.

[4] More information about this meeting in this post (in Spanish): http://www.ogphub.org/es/blog/perspectivas-latinoamericanas-sobre-gobierno-abierto-primeras-conclusiones-de-intercambio-regional/.

[5] List of working groups:

Fiscal Openness Working Group
Open Data Working Group
Legislative Openness Working Group
Access to Information Working Group
Extractives Transparency Working Group
More information: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/get-involved/join-working-group

[6]Some images here: 
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/video/2013/nov/05/open-government-partnership-summit-highlights-video
And here: https://www.youtube.com/user/OpenGovPart

[7]“Transparency is an idea whose time has come” http://www.opengovpartnership.org/blog/francis-maude/2013/10/09/transparency-idea-whose-time-has-come