Open Government Resiliency (KE0023)

Commitment 6: Build Open Government
Resiliency
We will build political support across National, County Government, Civil Society,
Private sector, Pan African Institutions and other OGP participating Countries in
Africa to share skills, knowledge, resources and expertise.
Objective
Ensure that the Open Government Partnership initiative in Kenya and Africa is resilient,
continuing its unique role as a platform for co-creation, dialogue and collaboration
between governments, parliaments, private sector and civil society.
Status quo
Support system for Open Government is currently unstructured or non-existent within
and across African Countries. As noted by the Support Unit, Open Government in Africa
mostly revolves around individual PoC’s and lacks whole-of-government high level
political support.
Ambition
Open Government Partnership is a unique platform that could de-risk the implementation
of the Big 4 Agenda, consolidate democratic gains and bring into existence, the values
of Agenda 2063 that seeks to ensure that Africa remains a cohesive Union, not only of
member states but that of peoples.
Lead implementing Organization
Office of the Deputy President, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Contact Person:
Dr. Korir Singoei
Legal Advisor/Lead-Legislative and Inter-governmental Liaison Office
Email: Abraham.singoei@gmail.com
Tel. +254722 776 994
Timeline
September 2018 to May 2020
OGP values
Access to information, Public accountability, Citizen Engagement, Use of Technology
New or ongoing commitment
New
Page 28 of 30
Other actors involved - government
Senate, National Assembly
Other actors involved - CSOs, private sector, working groups, Multilaterals etc
Local Development Research Institute (LDRI), Africa Peer Review Mechanism (APRM),
Africa Open Data Network (AODN), IDRC
Verifiable and measurable milestones to
fulfil the commitment
New or
ongoing
Start date End date
26. Develop an Open Government
Program in support of the NAP III
New January
2018
April
2019
27. Establishment of a multi-stakeholder
technical committee and OGP National
Secretariat
New December
2018
April
2019
28. Create an Open Government Network
in Kenya as the permanent dialogue
mechanism
New June
2019
December
2019
29. Create a Community of Practice for
Open Government, including an OGP
Kenya Website and knowledge sharing
platform
New January
2019
July
2020
30. Document stories and best practices
amongst the Open Government
Partners in Kenya/Africa
New June
2019
July
2020

6. Build Open Government Resiliency

Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:

“We will build political support across National, County Government, Civil Society, Private sector, Pan African Institutions and other OGP participating Countries in Africa to share skills, knowledge, resources and expertise.”

Objective

Ensure that the Open Government Partnership initiative in Kenya and Africa is resilient, continuing its unique role as a platform for co-creation, dialogue and collaboration between governments, parliaments, private sector and civil society.

Milestones

1. Develop an Open Government Program in support of the NAP III
2. Establishment of a multi-stakeholder technical committee and OGP National Secretariat
3. Create an Open Government Network in Kenya as the permanent dialogue mechanism
4. Create a Community of Practice for Open Government, including an OGP Kenya Website and knowledge sharing platform
5. Document stories and best practices amongst the Open Government Partners in Kenya/Africa

Start Date: January 2018

End Date: July 2020

Editorial note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text see: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/KENYA_Action-Plan_2018-2020_0.pdf

Context and Objectives

Currently only fourteen countries in Africa are participating in the OGP process. This commitment seeks to build an OGP support system in which the institutionalization of open government programmes can be fostered across governments throughout the region. The commitment also seeks to address current deficits in OGP coordination and institutional support and sets out to establish and strengthen the national OGP programme. [131]

The assessment of NAP II made various recommendations related to the sustainability and institutionalisation of OGP in Kenya including: creating a budget for the implementation of the open government programme and related coordination activities; creating interagency collaborative frameworks; instituting quarterly progress meetings and the publicizing of progress reports. [132] This followed from the identification of weaknesses such as: inadequate representation of local and sub-national CSOs; lack of consistency between OGP plans; lack of adequate resourcing; insufficient institutional and technical capacity concerning OGP processes; a need to weak inter-agency working; limited transparency and so on. [133] These sentiments were further echoed by a member of civil society who stated that OGP “isn’t institutionally anchored …it relies on “champions” which makes it hard to track with transitions… We cannot be anchoring reforms on mere champions. It's too volatile in the face of Africa's changing politics.” [134] This commitment is therefore a clear indication that steps are being taken to address these cleavages.

The commitment as drafted is clear and verifiable and outputs of the process can be easily assessed. However, specificity could be enhanced: for instance, milestone twenty six refers to the establishment of an OGP programme but however does little to indicate the form, structure or shelf-life of the proposed programme. This is particularly relevant given that coordination challenges have been highlighted as a challenge both in the development and implementation of the current NAP. [135] [136]

In regard to the OGP values, ‘Access to information’, ‘technology and innovation for transparency and accountability’ and ‘civic participation’ are all reflected in the milestones: Access to information could be potentially enhanced through the Permanent Dialogue Mechanism (PDM) and community of practice. PDMs can take on a variety of forms including information portals, town hall forums, media roundtables, policy dialogues and so on. ^[137] In some cases these allow for enhanced communication between different sectors and actors and improved transparency around decision making. Civic participation would be enhanced via milestones twenty seven and twenty eight, more so if these platforms also function as network hubs in which learning takes place.

In relation to whether this particular commitment would open government, the impact of this commitment in relation to its stated objective has been rated as “minor”. In order to achieve resilience, concerns around co-creation and dialogue will need to be adequately addressed for resilience to be achieved. This includes ensuring: wider representation from the counties (sub-national) and special interest groups; adequate documentation of processes and decision outcomes; and succession planning. It is not enough to assume that these aspects will be covered by milestone twenty six. Additionally, the overarching question of the CSO operating environment will also need to addressed. The commencement and implementation of the Public Benefits Organisations (PBO) Act (2012) would be instrumental in maintaining CSO participation which thus far has been at the core of the OGP in Kenya. [138] The Act has remained in limbo since its enactment. It will also be important for Kenya to consider that the performance of the PDM is also contingent on external factors arising from institutional, financial, legal, and political spheres. For instance, the shrinking of civic space especially during times of political upheaval, would undoubtedly affect the PDM.

Secondly, while much needed first steps towards resilience have been introduced, the commitment focuses on the establishment of platforms and networks but does not necessarily outline the uptake of resiliency strategies that would ensure that these networks and platforms are resilient, sustainable and effective in and of themselves. More could also be said about the resourcing of OGP initiatives in Kenya given that it has been identified as a key impediment to the realisation of OGP commitments. The establishment of a programme does not necessitate that it will be adequately resourced and funded. In regard to the regional scope of this commitment, the milestones do not appear to take a proactive stance towards ensuring that resilience across Africa occurs. The objective is quite clear in expanding the scope of the vision to include the Africa region while the interventions outlined narrow this focus to Kenya. Therefore the work that is already being undertaken to foster resilience across the country (amongst subnational governments) and with other African states through mentorship and learning exchanges will not be captured when implementation against the milestones is evaluated or measured. [139] That being said, while regional OGP work is important, especially politically, it does not immediately or strongly impact resilience and the opening of government at the national level.

Ensuring resilience will also require adequate representation of citizens. The current NAP addresses this by including three sub-national governments and the Senate in the implementation of the NAP. However, wider participation is not necessarily assured through the current milestones. Very little is said about the membership requirements to either the Open Government Network or the Community of Practice and the levels of access allowed by members. The Community of Practice and emerging network may be closed and therefore less participatory than envisioned. Significant effort has been made to improve political buy in for the current NAP. ^{[140] [141] [142]} However, it would be important to collectively reflect on how political will and ownership can be sustained and to move towards the adoption of a model of institutionalization. [143]

Lastly, grafting in milestones that promote utilisation especially within milestones twenty eight, twenty nine and thirty would also go a long way to enhancing the impact of the commitment. This is especially so given the fact that involvement in OGP in Kenya, for both CSOs and state agencies/ department has been known to wax and wane in the light of competing or shifting priorities, political transitions, misalignment with the OGP agenda, or shifts in donor priorities among other factors. [144] [145] [146] Different interventions can be incorporated to further reflect on these factors.

Next steps

The IRM Researcher therefore recommends that those involved in the OGP process consider the following:

• The OGP secretariat should strengthen its coordination framework in order to build synergy between the various stakeholders and implementers of the plan. [147] [148]
• The government should implement the Public Benefits Organization Act (2013). [149]
• Developing guidelines around the operation of the PDM, including: membership requirements; levels of access; approach to documenting best practices and stories; the manner in which dissemination of information will be undertaken; frequency of meetings and so on.
• Grafting in milestones that promote utilization of the platforms outlined and that promotes membership to the network and community of practice.
• Introducing mechanisms that can assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the PDM and community of practice such as has been undertaken in Moldova through the introduction of a performance scorecard of OGP initiatives. This could be used as the basis for discussion and communication to the public. ^[150]
• Focus on enhancing resilience in Kenya prior to extending this to the rest of the region.

6. Open Government Resiliency

Completion: Substantial. For details regarding the implementation and early results of this commitment, see section 2.3.

Aim of the commitment

Although Kenya joined OGP in 2011, coordination of OGP activities were not structured. OGP in Kenya generally lacked a whole-of-government approach, with gaps in institutional memory as a main challenge. In addition, there were no supporting structures for peer learning among the local governments in the country, nor among the African states, as intra-country activities only happened at OGP summit events. The government point of contact (POC) was identified to champion the process, but lacked adequate linkages with other national government departments, local governments, and non-state actors to foster collaboration and fast-track implementation of commitments. [18] As further explained in the action plan, support systems for open government were unstructured or nonexistent within and across African countries. Open government in Africa mostly revolved around individual POCs and lacked whole-of-government, high-level political support. [19]

This commitment aimed to establish a framework to link Kenya’s OGP activities with African values recognized across governments and identify and establish structures that could anchor OGP in Kenya (locally and nationally) and in other African states. The commitment is anchored on the two-tier government. It aims to leverage OGP technologies and values for open government at the local level.

Did it open government?

Marginal

Implementation of this commitment strengthened OGP structures in Kenya to facilitate government and civil society collaboration, implementation of commitments, and county-level engagement.

The government identified lead contacts from key government branches, such as the Senate, and selected local governments to join the national OGP process. To this end, the local governments brought on board Nandi, Nairobi, Vihiga, and Makueni Counties. Phillip Thigo, the government OGP POC [20] noted that early results from the local engagement included Makueni, Nairobi, [21] and Nandi Counties’ ascension to the OGP Local Program [22] and Makueni’s leadership in open government initiatives, such as public participation and open contracting, prior to joining the OGP Local Program. [23]

The National Secretariat was established in 2019. Members of the Secretariat are the POC Phillip Thigo, Maureen Kariuki (OGP Support Unit), Steph Muchai (Hivos and member of OGP Global Steering Committee), Sandra Musoga (Article 19, and holder of co-creation grant) and Sharon Sambu (designated as a full-time government official supporting the OGP activities). The mandate of the Secretariat was to coordinate all activities of OGP, including (i) scouting for and sharing opportunities to network members, (ii) responding to requests for champions and government-CSO support (as in the case of beneficial ownership), (iii) preparing Steering Committee meetings, (iv) delegations for OGP summits, (v) workstreams and other OGP events, (vi) correspondence with commitment leaders, and (vii) serving as penholder for the national action plans. [24] The Multi-Stakeholder Technical Committee was also established. Membership was identified during co-creation and officially commissioned during the launch of the action plan in February 2019. [25] Membership was comprised of respective POCs from Senate and local governments and technical officers from institutions and organizations represented in the Steering Committee. The core function of the Technical Committee was to ensure workstreams were driven toward implementation and to facilitate connection with principals in the Steering Committee for political expediency in decision-making and approvals. For instance, for the commitment on legislative openness and public participation, Senator Fatuma Dulo was the representative in the Steering Committee and Senate official Kavata Musyoka was the representative in the Technical Committee. [26]

Although a network had already been established in December 2016, with a WhatsApp group in place, membership was expanded during the action plan period. Membership at the time of writing was comprised of actors from government and nongovernmental organizations (not limited to OGP) and all actors with interests in open government at large. The objective of the network is to bring together all actors interested in the values of open government and create mechanisms for engagement between CSO, government, and private actors. An example of activity conducted by the network is an open dialogue forum held in Mombasa in 2019, which significantly influenced the co-creation and commitments for the third action plan.

The government, with the support of Article 19, created the open government website, [27] but failed to update it thereafter. Although the community of practice was not established as intended, government and its actors, such as Mzalendo, utilized other existing platforms, such as their Twitter handles [28] as sharing platforms.

According to the government POC, [29] implementation of milestone 30 was not structured and documented in the desired sense, but has recorded positive traction, especially in terms of sharing knowledge and practices in various forums, including the OGP summit; the Inter-Professional Summit; [30] and peer learning forums with African countries, such as Uganda, Burkina Faso, and Sierra Leone. [31] In addition, as part of the milestone, the Local Development Research Institute [32] commissioned research on how CSOs support OGP processes in Kenya. [33] The research aimed at building resilience of Kenya’s OGP to withstand political shocks and change of administrations.

Implementation of this commitment has contributed positively to the attainment of important results. Adding the three new county governments to the national process contributed to their inclusion in the OGP Local Program, an important achievement that shows how Kenya has strengthened open government beyond national level institutions. Another result area is the improved government. CSO engagement, however, was more visible during co-creation of the fifth action plan, [34] compared to the implementation period and activities in the third action plan. These results contribute to enhancing the resilience of OGP initiatives by expanding the level of participation and cultivating strong links between government and CSO that are crucial to supporting OGP, more so during uncertain political periods. [35]

This commitment has contributed a step forward in opening government at the national level but remains limited at continental level. Before this commitment, Elgeyo Marakwet’s activities in the OGP Local Program were not in sync with national level activities. While this was not a requirement, the IRM report for Elgeyo Marakwet recommended collaboration between national and local government for strong support in implementation. [36] This commitment has improved collaboration for local governments participating in OGP and for other county governments, such as Vihiga—which is not a member of OGP but expressed interest in implementing activities toward open government. In addition, CSO engagement in Kenya over the previous national action plans was inadequate. The IRM Design Report recommended deepening civil society engagement and addressing resilience of Kenya’s open government agenda. [37] Through the activities under this commitment, the government-CSO engagements improved in implementation and in co-creation of the fourth action plan.