Summary of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Working Level

Executive Summary
All 42 new OGP member countries were invited to participate in the peer exchange working meeting on December 7-8, 2011, in Brasilia, Brazil. In addition to government officials from new OGP member countries, this meeting included OGP Steering Committee members and a small group of civil society and international experts.  The objective of the meeting was to provide new participating countries with a clear sense of the OGP process and expectations, along with a more concrete sense of how their peers have approached different challenges in developing their draft action plans.

The meeting, opened by White House Senior Director Samantha Power and Brazil’s Minister of State Jorge Hage, emphasized the successes of the OGP and how members have grown from 38 countries at the launch in New York in September 2011 to 50 today, with indications that additional countries want to join. According to Hage,“We all have something to learn from each other, and OGP provides a platform for constructive dialogue and cooperation.” The meeting provided a collaboration of peers based on mutual trust and the opportunity to learn from each other’s experiences and best practices, taking into account the different circumstances of each country. Samantha Power added that “OGP is structure so that governments are answering to the ultimate authority, which is their people.”

Opening Plenaries: 
The OGP Commitment Development Process and Exploring Open Commitments

Global Integrity Executive Director, Nathaniel Heller, who manages the OGP Networking Mechanism, also provided governments with an overview of the more than 80 sources of expertise —from the public, private, and civic sectors—that are ready and eager to work with governments on developing and implementing their OGP commitments. He stated that “the pairing of governments and civil society makes OGP distinct and different from almost every initiative that has been attempted around transparency and accountability over the past decade.”

OGP governments and civil society organizations had a robust discussion around the OGP Networking Mechanism (NM), including the slow pace of demand for NM services and introductions to date. Many governments have just begun their development process, and between December and April 2012, the NM also will be exploring how it can facilitate the creation of ad hoc "affinity groups" of OGP governments, clustered around common areas of interest. For example, several governments are considering budget transparency reforms, and putting them in touch with each other on a regular basis—in tandem with issue experts and pro-bono service providers—could yield exciting synergies.

The speaker from Indonesia noted how important personal commitment from the lead official is to navigating bureaucracy and getting agencies to work together towards developing commitments- an insight that recurred throughout the meeting.

Minister Chikawe from Tanzania noted the importance of focusing on services in his country—particularly water, health and education— given how crucial they are to citizens, how much money these sectors consume, and how much transparency can teach us about allocations in these areas. He observed that for OGP to represent a quantum leap in member countries, governments need to be imaginative and bold, and this will  require more nimble and reliable means of directly engaging with citizens. 

The civil society representative from Mexico concluded that while additional time and resources would make the OGP commitment development process easier, political will and an unwillingness to relax and be comfortable are essential to improving government performance. He gave the example of Mexico’s Independent information commission (IFAI), which was cutting edge in 2002, but has been overtaken over the past decade by a new generation of reforms around the world.

Regional Breakout Sessions
Steering Committee members facilitated six regional working panels where countries shared best practices, successful experiences and challenges to date. Examples included the UK’s great success with using open data to measurably improve health sector performance, and the passage of Brazil’s new bill on Access to Information. Overall, the vast majority of participants were concerned about the fast approaching deadline for their action plans, and recognized that public consultation should begin and/or continue in earnest to maximize governments’ ability to benefit from external feedback by April.

Main Messages

• The OGP is eager to engage countries directly and assist with the many challenges of developing concrete commitments in partnership with civil sector organizations on a tight timeline. The meeting emphasized that formal networking mechanisms are available to all who want them.
• To date, OGP has been successful in driving (and reviving) open government reforms in the founding 8 countries, and increasingly new participants, but hard work awaits OGP countries to fulfill the potential of the initiative and rise up to the high expectations we have set for ourselves in this endeavor. The country action plan is where the rubber hits the road.
• OGP’ success and impact is not judged by virtue of comparison to formal set of metrics developed in a boardroom—but by civil society and citizens who monitor each country’s progress on their respective action plans.

Select Sessions
Country Experiences: OGP Commitment Development Process Plenary Panel
The panel focused on the commitment development process at the country level, with an emphasis on how countries are organizing public consultations and trying to engage multiple ministries in a “whole of government” effort.

Nathaniel Heller, from the Network Mechanism, opened the panel session by emphasizing that the pairing of government and CSOs is what makes the OGP distinct from almost every initiative that has been attempted around transparency, accountability, and open governance in the past decade.

Brazil presented an update on its process of developing an action plan with an inter-ministerial committee that is engaging CSOs, academia, and civil sector actors. Brazil also is using social media channels to generate input. The Czech Republic stressed its anticorruption focus, while Indonesia emphasized that its commitment to openness is necessary to navigating bureaucracy and achieving government efficiency and accountability. Mexico discussed the consultation process and the desire to learn more from Indonesia’s process, which included civil society as part of the country action plan drafting group. For Tanzania, a dearth of ideas on how to make changes sustainable presented a challenge. All countries expressed a desire for more time to develop their action plans, but recognized that the April deadline is helpful in driving concrete action at the national level.

Vivek Ramkumar from IBP talked about the use of social audits in India to scrutinize government activities, observing that open government is fundamentally about giving voice and dignity to citizens, and is essential to growing democracies, not just to increasing economic efficiency and growth. The adoption of social audits en masse in India may have come from convincing government that they could be used to help monitor a multi-billion dollar rural spending program, but at the end of the day, they have helped citizens to gain a new view of their power and role in democracies.

Regional Summaries

Representatives from each region of the world provided an overview of the issues, challenges, and opportunities they are facing so far in developing their draft action plans. Across regions, many countries focused on issue of basic service delivery, including health services, clean water, and education. Anti-corruption was also a prominent theme. Highlights include:

Asia—Representatives focused a great deal on trying to achieve a balance between launching new open government commitments and building on existing programs as part of the action plan. Some countries were well advanced in their consultation processes, having already launched in-person and online discussions to solicit ideas from the general public and civil society. Others were only beginning the process and recognized the urgency of commencing with public engagement as soon as possible given the short timeline between December and April.

Europe—Representatives noted three key challenges that Europe is facing. First, since the region is experiencing a financial crisis, there is tension between working toward growth and openness while also reducing the cost of government. Second, many countries noted the difficulty of changing the culture of civil service. The third challenge is how to create bridges so that new governments joining the effort can carry their commitments forward with the support of longer-term members.

The issue of timing was also a topic of discussion, with some countries looking at a one-year commitment while others were considering a three-year commitment. Steering Committee members clarified that action plans are for a minimum of two years, and should be considered living documents that can be amended and updated on a rolling basis, based on continued public feedback and consultation. Participants agreed on the importance of reviewing each others’ draft action plans and possibly setting up another regional meeting to explore similar commitments across countries and particular sectors in greater depth.

Africa- The group discussed their country action plans and the challenges that the short time frame for development and public consultation presented. On the other hand, participants recognized that setting tight deadlines pushed for the production of draft plans and that the April meeting is an action-forcing event.

In Kenya, political challenges have prevented the ability to scale up political commitment. However, the country representative hopes to have the draft action plan available by the end of January 2012. With a multi-stakeholder task force already in place, Kenya has moved forward with consultations and intends to get input from the public to enrich local plans. In Tanzania, a central push from the presidency provided the impetus to begin the development process. A draft plan will be posted by December 15, 2011, for review. Both Kenya and Tanzania are planning seminars and workshops to further their efforts; this supported the idea of building the capacity of citizens, not just the government, on the OGP process. The president of South Africa has provided support for the country’s draft OGP action plan, but there still needs to be a commitment from parliament, which is likely to come in January.

Latin America—These countries again discussed the common challenge of a short timeline to design their action plans, leading to a possible trade off between the quality of the consultation process available and delivering results. The region also faces structural difficulties in organizing quick and effective consultation process, emphasizing the need for proactive civil society participation to push government engagement. Representatives recognized that civil society can provide a valuable diversity of opinions, metrics to measure impact, strategies for engaging sub-national communities, and the opportunity to develop alliances and partnerships.

Governance Session
Four members of OGP’s Steering Committee gave an overview of the origins of OGP to date, with Roberta Solis Ribeiro from the Office of the Comptroller General of Brazil serving as moderator. The session began with Warren Krafchik discussing the evolution of OGP to date, from the January 2011 brainstorming meeting held in Washington, D.C. to the September launch of OGP in New York.

Martin Tisne, from the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, then spoke about the role of civil society at every level of OGP’s structure, including participating on the OGP Steering committee, supporting national consultation processes, providing technical expertise to OGP governments, and monitoring OGP processes at the country and international level. Caroline Mauldin, from Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Maria Otero’s office, then gave an overview of the structure and functions of the OGP Steering Committee. This included a process for rotating members onto the Steering Committee from new member countries and civil society, and transitioning existing members off on a regular schedule. It was announced that the rotating term will be three years.

Finally, Tim Kelsey from the UK Cabinet Office, representing the next co-chair, shared his vision for OGP going forward. According to Kelsey “OGP is a profoundly democratic movement. Democracy is fundamentally about expressing ideas, and that is what open government is about.”

Conclusions
Samantha Power, from the White House, provided closing remarks on the first day, emphasizing that the meeting provided an opportunity for rigorous, serious conversations. “Governments are curious and hungry to achieve the best possible version of themselves in this area”—said Power. Future meetings are important to keep the momentum going and further explore internal and external dynamics. Power adds, “If it ceases to be true that we are learning at these meetings, we will have officially become fat cats no longer worthy of the public trust.”

Power stressed that the experience of the U.S. government may provide a few key lessons for others:

1. Governments are necessary for this to work, but not sufficient, especially as we emphasize service delivery and effectiveness of government performance as equal partners to accountability and anticorruption. Citizens are the most reliable source of information, so governments need to seek the perspective of civil sector actors, even when that is challenging.
2. Individuals and particular personalities within ministries matter a great deal in generating heartfelt and sustainable commitments; Government action plans need insiders and champions for OGP to be truly transformative in each country.
3. Timing is important. The action plans are living documents that provide opportunities for learning through trial and error. It is important to create markers that can put the wind of the sails of those champions working on this day-to-day, including regular meetings and domestic benchmarks.
4. Take advantage of the community available here within OGP and the networking mechanism. OGP is here to help, you just need to let us know how.

On the second day closing remarks Chris Vein, White House’s Chief Information Officer for Government Innovation, invited the participants to think of ways to create the capacity for change in our countries and what are the resources we have to do this. He emphasized that technology has enabled us to access best programmers anywhere in the world. “Thing of governments as a platform, not a traditional organization—that doesnt have not all of the answers, all we need to do is take our assets and organize our information to allow outsiders to build on our platform, provide us with answers, introduce an open, competitive environment,” Vein said.

Minister Hage noted that while time remains a constraint, countries need to keep moving forward with their consultation processes and national action plan development. Action plans should be specific and stretch beyond current practices. Countries should send an update on their consultation process and how they are finalizing their action plans no later than January 31, 2012.

Participants List