Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)

INTRODUCTION TO OGP
I want to base my story today on both the theory and practice of OGP, with a emphasis on the civil society perspective. After describing the OGP basics I will focus on two of its key elements citizen engagement and technology. Finally, I will do my best to convince you why being part of the Irish OGP journey makes sense for techies, activists and engaged citizens at large. The citizen really is at the heart of the OGP philosophy and mechanics.

Start of OGP OGP started in 2011 and now has 58 members with some more lined up like Ireland. To my opinion OGP builds on two current trends. A positive trend of open government momentum: Freedom of information laws have been passed in many countries the last decades - over 90 countries have some sort of legislation in place now (the Swedes started this whole trend in 1766); The fast rise of social media and new communications tools has opened up new ways for getting information, expressing yourself, and for engaging/interacting with those in power. All very bottom up; The launch of big global initiatives like IATI and EITI has pushed previously closed domains towards openness; The open data movement includes many forms, from hacking to pro-active disclosure. It is a really interesting space to watch, especially where they open up new, useful data that can be combined and brilliantly visualized

And a negative trend where this same technology is used for the bad, where space for civil society is declining, where people have little faith in government and especially in politicians. Freedom House says that while the number of countries ranked as Free in 2012 grew to 90 (+3), 27 countries showed significant declines in freedoms; In the Netherlands only 10% of the population believes business leaders and politicians tell the truth when confronted by a difficult question, and fewer than 20% believe business leaders and politicians are capable of solving difficult problems (Edelman global PR firm); According to EU research a whopping 89% of Europeans state that there is a big gap between public opinion and the decisions taken by political leaders (EuroBarometer).

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013) CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN OGP
In the climate of those two trends OGP was born, clearly riding the positive wave and aiming to counter the negative one by launching a partnership between government and civil society and ultimately the citizen. The final aim of the partnership is to create a better and more open society where citizens are engaged and trust that their governments are looking out for the interests of their citizens. In a quick re-run. OGP is an international, multi-stakeholder initiative where countries that meet an eligibility threshold can become a member. Members develop an action plan with ambitious commitments around transparency, participation and accountability. The process has three key elements: Equal partnership between civil society and government (in governance of OGP, in the consultation process); Concrete, ambitious commitments on one of the 5 grand challenges that need to be defined SMART; Independent outside monitoring of progress on process, intentions and commitment delivery. In the design of OGP you see the citizen engagement angle coming back everywhere: in the eligibility criteria (where it is 1 of 4 criteria), in the governance (50% of the power is with civil society leaders from across the globe), in the monitoring. Citizen engagement is part of the objectives that what OGP strives for - and fully part of the mechanics i.e. what will make it work and bring the change.

THE ROLE OF TECH IN OGP

Technology and innovation are big things in OGP. Some countries actually think that technology will automatically bring transparency, participation and accountability. To some extent you see that reflected in the commitments made: E-government Open Data Citizen Engagement Access to Information/ Freedom of Information Global Integrity Analysis (July 2012) And many of the citizen engagement and access to information promises have underlying ICT approaches as well. To be honest, it feels as if some countries see tech as the magic potion that will easily solve their problems and strengthen their economy and society. Well, it does help, but I am afraid it is more 175 151 118 86 22% 19% 15% 11%

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)
difficult to get change in the way we do things, in norms, policies and political will and to restore the trust of citizens in society. So, technology is a brilliant tool but not enough. I have worked for more than a decade in the field of making use of ICT & media for societal change, for civil society advocacy, and for increasing access to information and expression. I know the excitement the ICT possibilities and promises bring. But also how difficult it is to get it right, to smartly integrate it into the things we are already doing and to make it work for longer-term policy changes. That asks for strategic thinking, taking risks, an open mind and enough time.

SOME EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT AND TECH

Lets first turn to some examples of citizen engagement and technology just to give you a flavour. Rahvakogu meaning peoples assembly. An Estonian initiative to crowd-source proposals from the broader public, discuss them online, analyse, group and select them and then actually discuss them in parliament. A nice way to see how a technology tool can result in policy making. It is a new initiative, so far 1155 proposals from 1400 different (registered) users Daraja/Twaweza in East Africa did a pilot on water monitoring. On paper a brilliant example. Start with 1) a topic people care about - water, 2) enable citizens to report broken water pumps by text message in real time, 3) make sure the follow up and feedback are organized, 4) plan a massive media campaign to make people aware of what it is and how it works. The organisation however only collected 53 texts that could be used. It seemed so simple, but getting it right is difficult. It is about changing deeper beliefs, for example that there really will be a reaction or that sending critique will not harm you down the line. Tech is never enough. Kenya Open Data portal was part of their OGP commitments: they were the first, they worked with a range of national and international actors, had a very good start, but are now facing problems. Datasets are not coming online fast enough (reluctance from the entities holding them), keeping them updated is difficult, making them useful is even more difficult. A good follow-up project ongoing is to place open data fellows with media and civil society organisations to make the data work for reporting and for advocacy. At the moment just a couple of 100 datasets, but interesting ones on health and education. Related initiatives: the US data.gov has 380,000 data sets. You can make suggestions if you want more. Data.gov.uk has 9,000. The numbers are astonishing, no? M-pesa, mobile banking. That is where entrepreneurship, innovation and tech really came together. People had phones, phone networks and shops reached to the deepest veins of the country, bank services were highly needed but hardly available (especially for the poor/rural). Then M-pesa came. Cheap, simple, building on existing networks. Now they have more customers than the banks combined, got duplicated in a range of countries, and introduced other services (savings, loans). Visualisation of data and information, from info-graphics (OGP has one: ) to videos to Hans Roslings brilliant gapminder to visualize trends over time. Absolutely crucial to make data understandable.

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)
Open Budget Index just launched a great data tool. A good map to see how countries are doing, the possibility to compare countries, track positions over the years and to actually see the detailed ratings (and play with it to understand how to improve it). Last one: wethepeople provides easy online petitions to the US president. You have 30 days to get 100,000 signatures, and the White House will respond.

THE P MAKES OGP SPECIAL

Stepping away from the technology for a moment and coming back to OGP. For me personally the Partnership element is the most exciting element of OGP. In many countries civil society has fought hard and long to get a seat at the table of power and to be taken seriously. At least in theory, that fight has been won. The partnership really is not just between government and civil society. It is also between civil society and civil society. For example, to really improve the access to information situation in a country it would be great if the open data technology geeks worked with the access-to-information policy wonks and they jointly involved media to make use of the access to information laws and open data sets. They should reinforce, not compete. A broad and proper consultation is obligatory to be a member of OGP. It is important to see the consultation not as a stand-alone moment, but really as the first step of a change process, a partnership. It is the dating phase. Government officials and civil society start talking to each other, explore each others interests and preferences, figure out the dynamics of context and power, and learn to understand each others language. All needed to build a long lasting relationship. When I tried to set up a partnership with Dutch telecom KPN, it took quite some time to find the best way to work together. First of all, we had to both understand and accept that we were in it for different reasons, but that did not mean we could not work together. They needed a volunteer project to help motivate their young, high-potential staff. We needed their skills and expertise on marketing, project management and ICT. And when we asked them to build capacity for quite some time, we meant training and skill-building whereas they meant putting phone cables into the ground!

OGP AND CONSULTATION EXPERIENCES

Very quickly: there are consultation guidelines OGP shares with its members. And in the so-called onboarding package', there are more tips and tricks. No rocket science. We know what we need to do; we also know where it usually goes wrong. Perhaps what OGP can bring is the long-term perspective of partnership for change rather than stand-alone consultation. Last April in Brasilia, at the first annual OGP meeting, even before I started this job, I heard quite a few negative remarks on the consultation processes at national level: unclear process, short timelines, only capital-based actors involved, only government favourites involved, no proper feedback to suggestions made.

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)

Last August, we did a big survey among civil society, capturing over 100 reactions. People were much more positive than expected. 32% rated it as good or excellent even, whereas 29% rated it as very weak or non-existing. 72% said important commitments were missing in the first action plan. A majority said they however, see the added value of OGP. I just read a report on OGP progress in Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet region. After a few pages on consultation weaknesses, they end surprisingly - by concluding that the result of the consultations was actually quite positive. Many suggestions were incorporated, vague initial plans transformed after consultation into measurable action plans and civil society did manage to shape the conditions for the dialogue. In Moldova, they used a mix of channels for consultation: classic physical meetings in the capital, a roundtable initiated by civil society, piggybacking on an existing programme to strengthen civil society in the regions to get at least some input beyond the capital, and finally they used an online consultation, (which interestingly enough got 25% of suggestions from outside the country). An improvement suggestion from them is that there was some feedback but the government did not actually provide a summary of all feedback received, what feedback was considered, what was not and why. In Mexico, the interaction did not have the perfect start. But after civil society raised complaints, they got a true partnership where civil society, governments AND the federal agency for access to information, (IFAI) worked together in defining priorities, (mostly based on CSO suggestions), and getting them realized. In the first year, 21 out of 36 commitments were delivered. In the name of transparency, they still publish minutes of all meetings they have. One weakness: only a small group of organisations namely, the transparency and access-to-information NGOs - participated. Mexico is a very interesting country to watch for this year to see how the civil society participation is broadened, how a political leadership change affects OGP (or not) and perhaps how to get OGP going at a subnational level. What helped here was that IFAI is well-respected and civil society was well organised. Two more. Russia is an interesting member of OGP, one could say. National civil society sees enthusiasm with part of the governments (change agents), but also notes the track record of President Putin on this topic. Lets say that theiropen government concept has a different meaning than it has internationally or for civil society. Russia organized a very big national meeting to discuss open government priorities last December, with the prime minister in the room. Russia says it involved 1,000 experts to come up with proposals in 10 areas, used Facebook and other social media to reach out to the broader public (one of the few countries who did so), consulted 3000 civic actors, (mind you this is not the same as civil society actors!). No less than 5 thematic conferences to discuss the draft action plan will follow, this quarter. The responsible ministry has no staff to work on OGP however since Medvedev stepped down as president. Well, at least on paper this looks like an inclusive and well-designed process. The Russian example shows the importance of political backing, and of empowering change agents in the system.

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)

An Estonian colleague made an interesting remark about consultations. He said that government was worried that they would open the consultation and then perhaps no one would be interested. That would be especially bad if you go for a consultation beyond the official civil society and try to involve citizens. True, there is a risk of only receiving a handful of suggestions for a national action plan. But the value is also in the honest willingness to listen to the citizen. That already contributes to restoring trust and engaging citizens. The number of suggestions is not the only indicator. In the end, citizens care about good health care, the quality of education, corruption, how their taxes are used. Not about perfect OGP Action plans and processes. Let me stop there. Some of these experiences are written down and can be found at the OGP blog. And in April we will launch a publication with insights into many more country experiences.

SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR IRELAND, WHY BOTHER?

First of all, Ireland really needs a boost in transparency and accountability I think the banking/economic crisis showed that. A lot of power is still with a small elite of business, church and politics and decisions are made behind closed doors. It is good to bring discussions and decision-making into the public arena. Second, you are well placed to lead on the tech side of this, with so many international tech giants being based in Ireland as well as indigenous start-ups. What makes OGP interesting for Ireland and Irish civil society at this moment is: It goes beyond one sub theme, so it is not just open data, or just about access to information laws, or corruption, or media freedom. It is all of that combined all things needed to come to an open society, a fundamental change in how we live together; It has citizen engagement front and centre in its thinking and a solid place for civil society in the governance and in the execution. The seat at the table of power is guaranteed; It gives a new tool to push for your existing objectives and for issues that might be stuck. You can make a plan that fits the Irish priorities. In many countries civil society managed to get a lot of asks in their countries' action plans and delivered; Almost 60 countries did it before you (-: So lots of mistakes have already been made and experiences are in place, as guides to Ireland's process.

To conclude
OGP is young, is trying things out. It is a very flexible model, so lots of freedom for the local context to define what it will look like. Your process and plan will be very different from the UK one for example. That also means that the coming years OGP will be an extremely interesting space to watch for innovation on consultation process, on partnered implementation, on new ways of monitoring.

Paul Maassen notes for Open Data Meet-up #3 (January 24, 2013)
In the end OGP is about a fundamental change in the relationship between civil society and govt. This is about partnership. Where government need to stop being afraid and really listen to the experts from civil society, and civil society needs to stop being just the critical outsider. To make it work asks for an active role of civil society. OGP can create the basics and share experiences, the government can initiate a consultation and open the door, but you are the ones that need to enter, accept the invitation and start working together. I cannot wait for Ireland to join and I promise you I will work with you to make Ireland a success story within OGP. Paul Maassen, Dublin, Ireland

Slide deck: http://www.slideshare.net/ActiveCitizen/citizen-engagement-and-technology-are-bothpillars-of-ogp