Preventing Misinformation through Data Sharing (FI0037)

We prevent mis- and disinformation through expertise and reliable information. • Together with OECD countries, we work to improve data sharing and develop the data and analysis base so that mis- and disinformation can be prevented and combated as effectively as possible through cooperation between different actors in society. Reliable information is vital for trust and democracy. • Practices for opening up data must be developed at all times, and we must prepare for emergencies in normal conditions. We will organize intersectoral discussions on the importance of opening up data in exceptional situations. We will collect best practices on how to combine the exceptional security situation and the appropriate opening of data. • We will promote the opening up of public sector purchase invoice data in municipalities and wellbeing services counties. • We will organize workshops open to the entire public administration and ensure through communication that all public administration actors are able to act in accordance with the Ministry of Finance’s ethical guidelines on artificial intelligence.

Action Plan Review

Commitment 2. 1: Preventing mis- and disinformation through expertise and reliable information

Commitment 2.1 Preventing mis- and disinformation through expertise and reliable information (Ministry of Finance)

For a complete description of the commitment, see Commitment 2.1 in the action plan here.

Context and objectives:

Although the title of this commitment focuses on mis- and disinformation, its main goals pertain to improving public access to government information and publication of open data. Access to information, including open government data, has been a recurrent priority in Finland’s OGP action plans. The fourth action plan focused on developing standards and guidelines to increase the quality of open data and usability of data portals to support the implementation of the 2019 EU Open Data Directive (EU/2019/1024). The fifth action plan contains four somewhat separate activity streams: 1) improving public access to open data in emergency situations, 2) promoting the opening of public spending data in municipalities and the new wellbeing services regions, 3) collaborating with other OECD countries to step up the fight against the global spread of mis- and disinformation, and 4) workshops to help implement the Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics guidelines developed during the previous action plan across the public administration. The IRM’s analysis focuses on the first two activities as these could potentially help advance government openness in priority areas for civil society.

Access to data in exceptional circumstances was a matter of public controversy during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 when the government agencies responsible for public health policies failed to fully respond to civil society’s demand for publishing the data models and the source codes that the government used to design crisis response measures. According to open data experts, the public sector’s reluctance to publish data may have been related to fears of compromising privacy and security by opening potentially sensitive data. [28] At the same time, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has increased the weight of security considerations in the discourse around open data. [29] Against this backdrop, the fifth action plan seeks to develop a common understanding within the public administration of the importance of openness and appropriate data publication practices in emergency situations where open government values need to be balanced with other policy goals such as national security.

The commitment’s objective to promote the opening of public sector spending data at the subnational level continues the second and third action plan’s work on opening public procurement data. As a result of the third (2017–2019) action plan, the government launched the openprocurement.fi online service, which provides public access to the central government agencies’ procurement data, as well as tools for exploring the data by government agency, supplier, and procurement category. Open data is available starting from 2016 at the level of individual purchase invoices. [30] The IRM assessed this as a major improvement in public access to public procurement data and recommended expanding the practice of opening public procurement data to the municipal and regional level. [31]

Potential for results: Modest

According to the European Open Data Maturity Report 2023 [32] and OECD OURdata Index 2023, [33] Finland performs well in open data. Finland has opened most of the datasets with the highest economic and societal value [34] and made rapid progress in developing its national open data portal. [35] However, according to Janne Peltola from Open Knowledge Finland (OKFI), Finland could do more to increase the transparency of policy-guiding simulation models and algorithms. [36] While aware of the importance of national security, CSOs see a need for societal dialogue on how to ensure government openness in delicate security situations. [37] As a minimum, CSOs believe the government should analyze the lessons learned from the tensions around access to open data during the pandemic. [38]

Despite the importance of developing a shared understanding and clearer rules on providing access to government data in emergency situations, this commitment is vague, with the government seeking to hold ‘intersectoral discussions’ and collect best practices on how to open data in exceptional security situations. Absent more specific objectives, it is difficult to assess how the planned discussions could lead to a broad agreement in the public sector of appropriate data publication practices in emergency situations, and how the collection of best practices would lead to actual implementation and widespread compliance with these practices. Since the action plan does not outline a clear plan to substantially change current practices, the results of this commitment may be modest.

The aim to promote the opening of public sector spending data in municipalities and wellbeing services counties faces similar challenges. On the one hand, this is an area where civil society stakeholders see important gaps. On the other, the commitment, as written, does not provide a clear roadmap to transform the open data landscape in municipalities and regions. Finland has slightly over 300 municipalities and 21 wellbeing services counties, which are responsible for organizing social, health, and emergency services. The counties are fully funded by the central government but autonomous in their decisions. According to Janne Peltola, opening public procurement data has so far not been a priority for regions, and working with regions to open up data is one of OKFI’s key projects for 2024. [39] CSOs working in the social and health sector would greatly appreciate the publication of regional open procurement data as this would enable them to compare the spending with service outcomes in different regions and analyze the share of CSOs in public service provision. [40] As the counties only started work at the beginning of 2023 and have no prior history of procurement, the next years offer a window of opportunity to introduce an open procurement culture at the outset. [41]

As of early 2024, no wellbeing regions and about one-tenth of Finland’s municipalities have published public spending data on the national open data portal. [42] This points to a gap between the public’s expectations and the actual data publication practices. However, changing data publication practices in hundreds of administrative entities with very different baselines would likely warrant a more holistic program that addresses key barriers to open data publication, and builds municipalities’ and regions’ capacity and interest to open up data.

Opportunities, challenges, and recommendations during implementation

To achieve substantial results, the government could formulate specific objectives for the four-year action plan term together with civil society. Once the ambition is clear, specific mechanisms and roadmaps can be developed to achieve the desired changes in access to open data in emergency situations and financial transparency. To foster harmonized data publication in emergencies, the government could consider whether public sector organizations would benefit from binding rules in the form of specific legal obligations in addition to general access to information legislation. At the same time, due to the complex and unpredictable nature of emergency situations, ‘softer’ recommendations and best practices may be more effective and flexible in ensuring government transparency at times of crises, provided the government takes steps to ensure high awareness and high compliance with such recommendations.

The government could consider the following recommendations when implementing the commitment:

●