Open Government Partnership (OGP)

In the spirit of multi-stakeholder collaboration, OGP is overseen by a Steering Committee that includes representatives of governments and civil society organisations (CSOs) at the country and multilateral levels, and chairmanship of the committee is shared by both a government representative and a civil society representative. Countries must be eligible to join the OGP, and after signaling their intent, they must co-create a two-year National Action Plan (NAP) with civil society, in which open government commitments are jointly developed.

OGP's Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) holds governments accountable for the commitments in their NAP and allows stakeholders to track OGP progress in participating countries by producing thorough, impartial reports that track the progress of every NAP commitment against a variety of factors.

To produce each IRM report, independent national experts assess the government's progress in fulfilling their commitments according to open government principles. They also make technical recommendations for improvements. All IRM reports undergo a rigorous quality-control process, and all IRM data from reports are publicly available in open data format. The reports are intended to inform the development of the subsequent NAP, as there is no gap between action plans, as well as to stimulate dialogue and promote accountability between governments and citizens.

The Open Government Awards are given to reformers from government and CSOs who have led open government initiatives resulting in real and sustainable change in people's lives. The awards are presented in ceremonies at high-level events such as the annual OGP Global Summit and the United Nations General Assembly. A new theme for the awards is chosen each year based on OGP strategic priorities and influenced by current events and the needs and desires of citizens around the world. For example, the theme in 2016 was "making transparency count" with an emphasis placed on how transparency in government-held information has led to improved public accountability, service delivery, and decision-making. At the awards ceremony, held at the OGP Global Summit, winners present TED-style presentations of their initiatives, which are then featured on the OGP website.

Building on the growing interest of governments beyond the national level in adopting open government principles, in April 2016, the OGP announced that 15 local governments were chosen to participate in the Subnational Pilot Program. This programme allows OGP to tap into successful open government innovations developed at a local level. It also allows OGP to support a growing number of subnational governments that are looking for new ways to interact with citizens, build trust, and harness the opportunities provided by new technologies to improve the lives of all citizens. For the two-year duration of the pilot, governments will work closely with local CSOs to develop their own specific commitments to open government, which will be assessed by OGP's IRM.

OGP has 6 thematic working groups that help governments design and implement more ambitious open government commitments, including by offering peer review of draft NAPs. Each working group is co-led by an OGP government and CSO and is open to any OGP participating country or civil society member to join. The six working groups are:

• Access to Information Working Group, led by the Carter Center and Mexico's Federal Institute for Access to Public Information and Data Protection;
• Anti-Corruption Working Group, led by Transparency International, Open Society Foundations, and the governments of UK, Georgia, and Brazil;
• Fiscal Openness Working Group, led by the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency, the Federal Secretary of Budget and Planning of the Government of Brazil, and the International Budget Partnership;
• Legislative Openness Working Group, led by the National Democratic Institute and the Congress of Chile;
• Openness in Natural Resources Working Group, led by the Natural Resources Governance Institute, the World Resources Institute, and the governments of Indonesia and Mexico; and
• Open Data Working Group, which identifies and shares global good practices to help governments implement their open data commitments and develop action plans. A key component of open government is the online release of government data for use (and reuse) by citizens, civil society, and the private sector. For instance, citizens in Brazil, Nepal, and Nigeria use publicly available online government budget data to track and fight corruption. The Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada and the Web Foundation, which is implementing an International Development Research Centre (IDRC) project on open data in developing countries, are co-chairing the Working Group. The group includes government and CSOs from more than 30 developing and developed countries. This project is working to: strengthen the ability of the Open Data Working Group to support joint learning between governments and civil society; support and co-host the third International Open Data Conference in Canada in order to disseminate findings, promote joint learning, and accelerate the momentum of open data initiatives (click here to read the conference report, "Enabling the Data Revolution: An International Open Data Roadmap [PDF]"); and generate lessons from the OGP planning, implementation, and evaluation to improve open data commitments and implementation.

Democracy and Governance, Rights

In February 2016, OGP released 26 of 38 country Progress Reports by its IRM with findings about their progress in implementing open government reforms. As a whole, the reports show that a number of governments have made noteworthy progress in combatting corruption and opening up government to input from civil society. "This year we are seeing a continued effort by governments to use OGP in their struggles against corruption", said Joseph Foti, Program Director of the IRM. Successful commitments to make government more open include Ireland's referendum on marriage equality, Canada's open data reforms, and Bulgaria's mining law reform. A few additional examples of impact in OGP countries:

• Albania: Recorded court and judicial hearings and made them available online to the public
• Brazil: Increased citizens' access to information on land management
• Chile: Began enacting advanced lobbying reforms
• El Salvador: Established an Information and Response Office across government to process requests from the public
• Ghana: Simplified budget information and held frequent consultation budget meetings with civil society
• Indonesia: Launched an online service for citizens to submit reports on the quality and completion of public works
• Kenya: Enacted a bill to publicly vet judges and ensure public access to cases and judgments
• Liberia: Enacted legislation aimed at reducing corruption and improving work ethic within the public sector
• Philippines: Government invited citizen participation and oversight of important public works and infrastructure projects
• Tunisia: Began opening up major infrastructure projects to public scrutiny
• Ukraine: Strengthened the Access to Information law by closing loopholes that allowed information to remain secret, which is opening up 80 years of KGB documents to its citizens.

At the same time, many governments have made little headway in tackling the biggest governance issues in their countries, with a notable minority clamping down on civil protest and public participation in government. A number of the IRM reports found that NAPs are falling short of the goal of opening government. For example, in Tunisia, still riding a wave of reform following the Arab Spring, activists interviewed for the report stated that reforms must go beyond the national level to involve local governments and citizens to truly control corruption. Commenting on the reports as a whole, Joe Powell, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of OGP observed, "Independent reporting on progress is one of the things that makes OGP different to other international initiatives. These reports can make for uncomfortable reading, even for the most reform-minded public official, but they provide vital learning on how to tackle difficult policy challenges."