Comments on the IRM Mexico report
The draft version for public comments of the Independent Progress Report on Mexico´s first National Action PlanAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen... (NAP) has been recently launched. No doubt this is a milestone for both the ongoing Mexican OGP process and for the global initiative as a whole. For our national process provides a valuable and reliable input to reinforce our ongoing conversation on the strengths and limitations experienced on the development and implementation of our first NAP as well as the challenges that we faced in fulfilling open government principles in doing so. For OGP, as a global initiative, is a privileged window to reflect on the relevanceAccording to the OGP Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should include a clear open government lens. Specifically, they should advance at least one of the OGP values: transparency, citizen partic... of the instrument (the IRM Progress Report) as both, as an accountability mechanism and a tool for incentivizing improvement and ambitionAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should “stretch government practice beyond its current baseline with respect to key areas of open government.” Ambition captures the po... in NAPs.
About process, progress and results
A number of lessons can be drawn from the Progress Report. The first one is that developing a robust NAP demands time, political will and a good dose of meaningful CSOs engagement. Our process lacked time, political will (at the beginning of the process) but had plenty of CSOs engagement. Lack of political will from government limited the scope, ambition and ownership of the first version of our NAP presented to OGP in April of 2011. The initial government approach to OGP was “business as usual”: consultations with CSOs were carried out but at the end of the day the CSOs input was largely ignored.
CSOs rejected the NAP and demanded the creation of a second “expanded” version in closer collaboration with civil society. To amend and steer the new process, a three-part governance system of the initiative was put in place shared by the Federal Government, the Information Commission (IFAI) and a representative from CSOs. This changed the nature and ownership of the initiative: OGP was no longer a solo-government project but a shared initiative between government and civil society. The “expanded version” of the NAP featured a wider set of commitments, each with a unique co-governance structure between civil society and government.
However, ambition of this new set of 37 commitments was low: precious time was lost during the phase of adjustments to the governance and steering of the initiative and results were expected to be achieved in a few months. Hence, the low hanging fruits of open government were prioritized. Most commitments were built over preexisting work either from CSOs or government. According to the Progress Report prepared by Centro de Contraloria Social del CIESAS, 34 of 37 commitments emphasize access to information, 24 emphasize the use of TICs for transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More and only 8 emphasize civic participation. At the end of the implementation cycle only 20 out of 37 commitments were fully completed. That’s why meaningful CSOs engagement is a necessary component of a robust NAP but not sufficient: political will and appropriate timing and methodology are equally important. The lesson was learned and these elements were the driver for the development of our second NAP, which will be presented at the upcoming London Summit.
The second lesson is straighter forward: civil society engagement and ownership of OGP is what makes the initiative sustainable. OGP in Mexico survived what more polices do not in our public administrative culture: a change in office from President Calderon (from the right-handed party PAN) to President Peña Nieto (from the centrist PRI). Fortunately, OGP process in Mexico is still alive, enjoying of a good health and political will from government has been sustained. No doubt that what made this possible was the deep level of engagement of the group of eight CSOs steering the process in Mexico.
About the IRM Progress Report as an instrument to enhance OGP’s accountability, improvement and ambition.
No doubt that one of OGPs most interesting and promising features is the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM)The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) is OGP’s accountability arm and the main means of tracking progress in participating countries. The IRM provides independent, evidence-based, and objective .... Very few MSI’s have a similar organizational arrangement provision: an internal but independent body by which all stakeholders can track progress in participating countries. The progress reports assess governments on the development and implementation of OGP action plans, progress in fulfilling open government principles, and make technical recommendations for improvements. The IRM produces biannual independent progress reports for each country participating in OGP.
However, for the IRM to achieve its goal, a number of considerations should be taken into account. First: producing robust evidence is necessary but not enough to actually make it relevant and drive change. The only reason why my organization GESOC exists (and considered relevant by some stakeholders in Mexico) is because the Mexican government produces tons of information that never used to get used by the own government: lots of indicators, evaluations, budget reports and a large etcetera. What we have been doing for the last five years is gathering such information and developing a narrative out of it that could appeal to decision makers and to the wider public. IRM and OGP at large, should develop a clear narrative around IRM reports that clearly appeals to relevant stakeholders.
Second and final, methodology and timing matters. Flexibility should be introduced to adapt the methodology to the local context. For instance, in Mexico, the self-progress report was not elaborated by the Mexican Government but by the three-part governing body of the initiative from which CSOs are part of. However, the first draft of the IRM Progress Report was never shared with CSOs. Timing is also relevant: having draft versions in advance contributes to input the new NAP.