8. Provision 7: Proactive disclosure
Proactively make available clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information that is free of cost, available in an open and non-proprietary machine-readable format, easy to find, understand, use and reuse, and disseminated through a multi-channel approach, to be prioritised in consultation with stakeholders.
For many years, promoting transparency has been the underlying motivation for – and the intended outcome of – open government strategies and initiatives. Initiatives to promote and reinforce transparency in the public sector have been implemented by all Adherents. They range from enacting access to information (ATI) laws, to digital government and open data policies, among others. Most of these initiatives have been focused on the disclosure of information and data and, more particularly, to the responsibility of governments in making it available (Mabillard, V. and R. Zumofen, 2016[1]). Providing public information to all citizens and stakeholders allows them to hold governments accountable and encourages them to participate actively in decision making regarding policies and services that affect their lives.
As discussed in the analysis of provision 2, all Adherents but one have enacted ATI laws. Most of these laws require the proactive disclosure of a minimum set of public information by each public institution or institutions using public funds.
Proactive disclosure – which refers to the act of regularly releasing information without the need for a request by stakeholders – has several benefits. It reduces the administrative burden for public officials handling and answering individual ATI requests, which can often be lengthy and costly, and favours timely access to public information for citizens and other stakeholders, as information is published as it becomes available and not merely upon request (OECD, 2016[3]). However, only 44% of Respondents, such as Australia, Norway, Spain, Tunisia and the United Kingdom, require public institutions to proactively publish information that has been repeatedly requested with a positive decision taken on its disclosure (Figure 8.2). This measure could help ease the administrative burden of ATI requests, saving time and resources for the public administration in the future.
Note: Argentina, Belgium, Japan and Sweden did not answer this question of the survey. France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland did not respond to the survey.
Source: OECD (2020[2]), 2020 Survey on Open Government.
Furthermore, the OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018 revealed that all Adherents1 have formal requirements in place whereby government data should be open by default. Sub-pillar 1.1 of the OECD OURdata Index “content open by default policy” (Figure 8.3) measures whether there are formal requirements whereby data should be open by default and whether all exceptions to this rule are clearly identified. It assesses whether the open by default policy is evidence-based (informed by regular reports and statistics), whether the requirements apply to all or some government agencies and whether there are performance incentives for agencies to support effective implementation in practice. According to the OECD 2019 Open Useful Reusable Data (OURData) Index, which will be updated in 2023, a growing number of OECD Members have scaled up ‘open by default’ requirements by publishing formal open data strategies, laws and regulations. This contributed to the rise in the OECD average of data availability between 2017 and 2019. While the acknowledgement of the open by default principle is a triumph in itself, only few Adherents including Canada, Norway and Italy consider the implementation of open data requirements (e.g., the provision of timely and machine-readable data) to be part of performance indicators of public sector organisations. In Canada, the Management Accountability Framework assesses the performance of federal departments and agencies in their implementation of the 2014 Canadian Directive on Open Government, which covers public sector information and open data (OECD, 2020[4]).
Note: Data not available for Hungary, Iceland, Morocco, Romania, Tunisia, Türkiye and the United States.
Source: OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018. Data for Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica was collected from the IDB-OECD Open Government Data Survey.
Some Adherents have specific websites that inform citizens of the various bodies that hold public information and redirect them to the relevant sites, e.g., the government’s central website for FOIA in the United States redirects requesters to the relevant agencies. Romania publishes all draft laws and normative acts in an official gazette. Regarding public funds, governments often have dedicated websites for financial and budgetary statements. For example, Ireland has a website detailing annual public expenditure with a number of user-friendly graphs and downloadable data per sector. The accessibility of these online tools is key to ensuring that all citizens can easily locate existing information.
The most commonly disclosed items stated in the ATI law or other legal framework are those related to the public institution itself: its functions (88% of Respondents), the organigram (88% Respondents) and the services offered (69% of Respondents) (Figure 8.4).
Note: N=32 Adherents. For Costa Rica, the information relates to the Executive Decree applying to the Executive branch. Denmark, Greece, Japan, Korea, Latvia and Sweden did not reply to this question of the survey. France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland did not respond to the survey.
Source: OECD (2020[2]), 2020 Survey on Open Government.
Other relevant documents regularly published include legislations, budgeting documents, annual activity reports and audit reports. A smaller number of Respondents proactively publishes the minutes of meetings with external organisations (25% of Respondents) or the ministers’ agendas (25% of Respondents). While one Adherent, Finland, does not have a legally pre-defined list of information to be disclosed, they do publish information proactively in practice.
In addition to the information requested to be disclosed by ATI laws, open data regulations usually identify a number of information that need to be disclosed. According to the OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018, the number of datasets made available on central/federal data portal for Respondents range from 11 for Denmark to 265 155 for France. This includes information related to agriculture, forestry, performance of school, pollution levels and energy consumption, among others.
In terms of proactive disclosure, it is also important to determine where and how information is published, as this facilitates greater awareness of its existence. Among Adherents, proactively disclosed information is mostly published on each ministry’s or institution’s website, followed by a central portal, which often simultaneously functions as an open data portal (for example, in Finland (Government of Finland, n.d.[5]) and Mexico (Government of Mexico, n.d.[6])) or a combination of both. Other means of publication include official gazettes, which are mostly used for disclosing legislative information (e.g., constitution, organic laws, decrees, regulations) or budgeting documents.
Some Adherents have specific websites that inform citizens of the various bodies that hold public information and redirect them to the relevant sites, e.g., the government’s central website for FOIA in the United States redirects requesters to the relevant agencies (Government of the United States, n.d.[7]). Romania publishes all draft laws and normative acts in an official gazette (Government of Romania, n.d.[8]). Regarding public funds, governments often have dedicated websites for financial and budgetary statements. For example, Ireland has a website detailing annual public expenditure with a number of user-friendly graphs and downloadable data per sector (Irish Department of Finance, n.d.[9]). The accessibility of these online tools is key to ensuring that all citizens can easily locate existing information.
Furthermore, these websites and portals could be designed to minimise barriers for both the general public and those with specific needs. It is important that information be disseminated through a multi-channel approach to ensure that stakeholders with limited information and communication technology (ICT) skills or access to the Internet have the same opportunities to access and use public information. Also, the limited digital skills and ICT literacy from some citizens and stakeholders need to be taken into consideration to fully reap the benefits of proactive disclosure as technology difficulties can also come from the users themselves. Some users do not practice information searching or suffer from the digital divide. In the latter case, they may not have access to electronic tools, especially computers, nor to Internet networks or even to stable sources of electricity for the poorest members of the population. Sometimes, they suffer from an inability to use ICTs due to their age, certain forms of illiteracy, a disability/handicap or incomplete mastery of the country's official language.
A large majority of Adherents (86% of Respondents) have guidelines in place on how the information should be disclosed to make sure that is not just a ‘tick-the-box’ exercise and ensure that information made available is in line with the minimum standards. An example of such guidelines exists in Norway. To complement the Access to Information Law, the Civil Ombudsman in Norway has produced guidelines on promoting greater access to information (Norwegian Civil Ombudsman, 2022[10]). As the Ombudsman processed more than 300 cases about access to information in 2021, the guide is intended to raise awareness among public officials on how to handle requests properly and to encourage proactive disclosure. The guidelines also encourage further training on the law, so that the right to information is seen as a priority across the public administration. Australia and Canada both have websites with specific guidelines on proactive disclosure, with both explaining the benefits of such disclosure, while Australia also explains the minimum requirements for each agency’s publication scheme for government information (Government of Canada, n.d.[11]) (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, n.d.[12]).
Overall, guidelines for disclosure often require that information must be (see Figure 8.5):
Timely and subject to specific deadlines, for instance 1) it should be published as early as possible so it is relevant and actionable, and 2) if it is requested by an individual, the government is subject to clear deadlines on providing the information (77% of Respondents with guidelines).
Note: N=31. Japan and Sweden did not respond to this question. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Latvia and the Slovak Republic do not have guidelines in place for proactive disclosure. France, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg and Switzerland did not respond to the survey.
Source: OECD (2020[2]), 2020 Survey on Open Government.
According to the OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018, most Adherents2 have overarching requirements that apply to all public sector organisations at central/federal level to provide data free of charge. Only in Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark and Sweden there are legal requirements that have been adopted by some public sector organisations. As can be seen in Table 8.1, in 67% of Respondents all information that is provided is free of charge and can be downloaded, in 61% can be copied, in 64% can be used and in 56% can be distributed.
Finally, most Adherents have in place formal requirements for public sector organisations to provide data in machine readable format (Figure 8.6).
Note: Data not available for Hungary, Iceland, Morocco, Romania, Tunisia, Türkiye and the United States.
Source: OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018. Data for Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica was collected from the IDB-OECD Open Government Data Survey.
In some cases, the publication of information can take place without sufficient reflection on the how, the why, the needs of the receptors of the information, and which information is most relevant and useful, leading sometimes to a sense of opaque transparency and a belief that access to information (proactively or reactively disclosed) does not necessarily lead to more transparency. More efforts are needed from Adherents to engage with citizens and stakeholders to understand what they need and how. In fact, few Adherents have requirements to hold regular meetings to discuss updates on proactive disclosure (13% of Adherents with guidelines) or to carry out frequent revisions on what must be published proactively (42% of Adherents with guidelines).
In addition, the OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018 revealed that 44% of Respondents do not have any formal requirements in place for central/federal public sector organisations to regularly conduct consultations with users to inform open data plans (Figure 8.7).
Note: Data not available for Hungary, Iceland, Morocco, Romania, Tunisia, Türkiye and the United States.
Source: OECD Open Government Data Survey 2018. Data for Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica was collected from the IDB-OECD Open Government Data Survey.
Conducting consultations with users would allow governments to embrace digitalisation while ensuring that users can clearly identify how to source government information, which they can then employ to advocate for their needs, defend their civic freedoms and engage with public decision-making processes on laws, policies and services.
The analysis shows that, overall, the implementation of provision 7 is progressing well, however further efforts could be made to protect and promote access to information, and to ensure that its implementation in practice matches the legal frameworks that serve to safeguard it. In particular:
7.1: Overall, Adherents could consider further efforts to render access to information processes more inclusive and accessible for all social demographics, including marginalised groups. Some Adherents have made efforts to use plain language and undertake specific campaigns, trainings, and workshops with citizens and CSOs to raise awareness of their right to information. Such initiatives are key in educating stakeholders on how they can use public information to advocate for their needs and demands. For most Adherents, there is room for the coordination and oversight bodies for their ATI law to take a more proactive role in overseeing and evaluating the implementation of the access to information law through the use of the forthcoming OECD Access to Information maturity model. The establishment of ATI offices or officers could assist Adherents in promoting the importance of the right across the administration and in advising and training public officials on their respective responsibilities. Similarly, the lack of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms is a major challenge in implementing ATI laws for most Adherents. There is a need to collect more data to adequately measure efforts and identify shortcomings. For example, oversight bodies could track and measure which information is most frequently requested and begin to disclose this type of information periodically. This could allow public bodies to prioritise which information is most useful to proactively disclose for stakeholders and citizens. Such initiatives can thus ease the administrative burden of ATI requests by saving both time and resources for the public administration in the future.
7.2: Adherents could ensure that the legal and policy frameworks around ATI continue to adapt to an ever-changing context. For example, there is an increasingly delicate balance to be found between the right to access public information and the equally legitimate right to privacy and personal data protection. Furthermore, the institutional oversight bodies responsible for both of these policy areas are increasingly identifying synergies in safeguarding both rights in some countries. In this sense, Adherents are navigating new territory in guaranteeing access to public information while tackling new challenges introduced by fast-paced digitalisation and increased data collection in the public sector.
References
[11] Government of Canada (n.d.), Proactive disclosure, https://open.canada.ca/en/proactive-disclosure (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[5] Government of Finland (n.d.), avoindata.fi, https://www.avoindata.fi/en (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[6] Government of Mexico (n.d.), Gob.mx, https://www.gob.mx/en/what-is-gobmx (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[8] Government of Romania (n.d.), Official Gazette, Monitorul Oficial, https://www.monitoruloficial.ro/ (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[7] Government of the United States (n.d.), FOIA.gov (Freedom of Information Act) Home Page, https://www.foia.gov/ (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[9] Irish Department of Finance (n.d.), Where Your Money Goes, https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/ (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[1] Mabillard, V. and R. Zumofen (2016), “The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks”, Public Policy and Administration, https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716653651.
[10] Norwegian Civil Ombudsman (2022), The Inspection Guide, https://www.sivilombudet.no/innsynsguiden/ (accessed on 19 September 2022).
[4] OECD (2020), OECD Open, Useful and Re-usable data (OURdata) Index: 2019, https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/policy-paper-ourdata-index-2019.htm.
[2] OECD (2020), OECD Survey on Open Government.
[3] OECD (2016), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[12] Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (n.d.), Information Publication Scheme, https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/information-publication-scheme (accessed on 19 September 2022).