INFORMATION OFFICERS NETWORKING FORUM PROACTIVE … · Regulation Public Participation Public Procurement and Subsidies Budgets, Expenditure and Finances Categorisation of, and Systems

INFORMATION OFFICERS NETWORKING FORUM

PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE

Fabian Seiderer, Lead Public Sector Specialist, the World Bank

Colombo, December 11th , 2017

OUTLINE

1. Fiscal information and transparency matters for the private sector and

public finances

2. A monitoring framework for proactive disclosure in Sri Lanka

3. Baseline and potential quick wins

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY IS A WORTHWHILE INVESTMENT

Fiscal data matters for firms (budget data, procurement, taxes and duties,…) as confirmed by WB enterprise surveys and DB.

Fiscal transparency matters for investors and their risk perception. Studies showed a positive correlation between fiscal transparency and FDI (Gelos & Wei 2005)

Fiscal transparency has a positive impact on credit ratings, by reducing information asymmetry and uncertainty. An IMF study found that a 15% improvement in ROSC and Open Budget Index (OBI) can lead to a 0.7 -1 notch increase in credit rating.

This has a positive impact on borrowing costs by reducing risk premiums and spreads, estimated at 0.3% (Moretti 2012) or 11% of the spread (Glennester and Shin (08)).

Increased reporting on GvT liabilities and conditional liabilities (incl. SoEs) reduces fiscal risks and costs.

Global initiatives on Fiscal transparency, such as GIFT, whose 10 principles were approved by the UN General Assembly in 2012; Open Government Partnership and Open Contracting.

http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE REUSE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION (PSI)

From RTI to PSI reuse the complementary benefits of transparency: public sector accountability, improved access and quality of public services, economic benefits;

Def. the transformation of raw PSI into new products, services and processes. PSI is a non exclusive public good.

MEPSIR (2006) direct reuse market in the EU 25 Euro 27 bn, estimated at Eu 52bn in 2017.

Maximizing the potential socio-economic benefits, in a digital and knowledge based economy (creation of a single EU market for PSI)

The different benefits to the private sector, it :

1. reduces information asymmetry and improves the level playing field (SMEs),

2. reduces transaction costs to access information (financial and staff time);

3. reduces uncertainly and improves investment decisions;

4. enables the development of new products and services (re-use industry).

5. enables efficiency gains in the products and processes of companies (PSI and reuse);

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE REUSE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION (PSI)

There have been several studies attempting to estimate the potential benefits and market size of Public Sector Information re-use, mainly in developed economies:

Study Country of Focus Estimated benefits Scope

PIRA (2000) EU 15 Eu 68 bn of which Eu 36 bn for

geospatial information

PSI acquired by Government

O’Connor (2010) Ireland $ 112-537 mio Most common PSI goods

OFT (2010) United Kingdom $ 797 mio Most common PSI goods

McKinsey (2013) World $ 3-7 billion Open data (subset of PSI)

MEPSIR (2006) EU Euro 27 billion Business, Geographic Legal Meteorological, Eco-social and

Transport data + Reuse industry

Vickery (2011) EU Euro 160- 200 billion PSI reuse + indirect and efficiency gains.

WAY FORWARD TO FOSTER RE-USE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION (PSI)

Through dedicated use and re-use policies and principles:

1. Scope of reuse = scope of RTI – IPR protected and public interest override

2. Digitization of information

3. Open and machine readable format, with metadata

4. Interoperability and granularity of data

5. Fees limited to marginal production costs or reasonable return (university, libraries,)

6. Open reuse licenses specifying the terms and condition for reuse (references, citations, modification,…)

7. Possibility of time bound exclusive agreements enabling the private partner to recoup its investments (EU max 10 years) – transition period

Challenges: definition of PSI/ Scope, cost of digitization, pricing and financing of public bodies, cultural goods, legal documents, software

Examples: the European Union Directives (Directive 2003/98/EC), updated in 2013 (Directive 2013/37/EU), UK Open Government License: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ ; Creative commons open licenses as well as non-derivative reuse licence or software reuse licences. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/





https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/

A STRONG LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ON PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE IN

SRI LANKA

Institutional Information

Organizational Information

Information and Decision-making

Processes

Public Services Public Policy,

Legislation and Regulation

Public Participation

Public Procurement

and Subsidies

Budgets, Expenditure and

Finances

Categorisation of, and Systems for, Accessing

Information

Prior Disclosures of Information

Prior Disclosures of Public Investments under section 9 of RTI Act

Section 14 of the RTI Act affirms the principle of proactive disclosure;

Section 8 of the Act foresees the publication bi-annual report on RTI implementation;

Section 9 of the RTI Act specifies the proactive disclosure of projects;

Regulation No. 20 specifies the categories of information to be proactively disclosed, such as:

HOW CAN WE ASSESS PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE ? A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

1. Numerous RTI requests linked to information that should be proactively disclosed. Potential quick win

and impact

2. Monitoring Methodology developed with Verite Research

3. Assessing comprehensiveness and currency of content disclosed online across government.

4. Assessing usability of the information disclosed:

Ease of access

Multi-lingual

Re-usable format

METHODOLOGY

1.Institutional Information

2.Organisational Information

3.Operational Information and Decision-making Processes

4.Public Services

5.Public Policy, Legislation and Regulation

6.Public Participation

7.Public Procurement and Subsidies

8.Budgets, Expenditure and Finances

9.Categorisation of and Systems for Accessing Information

10.Prior Disclosures of Information

11.Prior Disclosures of Public Investments under Section 9 of RTI Act

* 55 central government public authorities

* Information categories (11) and subcategories (30) mandated by the RTI Act and regulations

* 2 components : content and usability

* Rating of each information sub-category

* Along 5 dimensions (U, MU, MS, S, HS), on a Scale of 0 to 4 points, depending on the type of information:

- Type1: simple & up to date;

- Type 2: comprehensiveness but not time sensitive;

- Type 3: comprehensiveness & currency

By public authority and information cat. :

0-10%: unsatisfactory

11-40%: moderately unsatisfactory

41-60%: moderately satisfactory

61-80%: satisfactory

81-100%: highly satisfactory

Scope

Rating

Score

Type

of

info.

Rating

Unsatisfactory Moderately

Unsatisfactory Moderately

Satisfactory Satisfactory Highly

Satisfactory

1 No info.

Published

(0 points)

N/A N/A Info. dated or

unknown

(1 point)

Up-to-date

information

published

(2 points)

2 No info.

published

(0 points)

N/A Info. published -

but no details (1

point)

Info. but

incomplete (2

points)

Complete

information

published

(3 points)

3

No info.

published

(0 points)

Info. published -

but no details on

date or comp.

(1 point)

Info. is up-to-date

but no details

(2 points)

Info. is up-to-date

but incomplete

(3 points)

Up-to-date and

complete

(4 points)

METHODOLOGY: SCORING CONTENT

Type Rating

Unsatisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory

Moderately Satisfactory

Satisfactory Highly Satisfactory

1 No information (0 points)

N/A N/A Information published - dated or unknown whether current (1 point)

Up-to-date information published (2 points)


N/A Information published - but no details on whether complete (1 point)

Information published - but incomplete (2 points)

Complete information published (3 points)


Information published - but no information on whether up-to-date or complete (1 point)

Information published -up-to-date but unknown whether complete (2 points)

Information published -up-to-date but incomplete (3 points)

Up-to-date and complete information published (4 points)

Overall content, usability and overall ratings were based on the following scale:

0-10% : unsatisfactory 11-40%: moderately unsatisfactory 41-60%: moderately satisfactory 61-80%: satisfactory 81-100%: highly satisfactory

METHODOLOGY: SCORING BANDS

ASSESSING CONTENT DISCLOSURE ONLINEEHENSIVENESAND CURRENCY

Categories/Subcategories

Rating of Content Disclosure

U MU MS S HS Mx pts % Score

(Y) Comments

A. Institutional Information:

1. Mandate: vision and mission

statements

0 N/A

N/A 1 2 2 X/2 *100 Completeness is irrelevant; incentivize currency

2. Functions and powers of PA 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 incentivize currency

G. Public Procurement and Subsidies 16. Publication of tenders 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

17. Publication of contract award 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

H. Budgets, Expenditure and Finances

18. Budget of current year 0 N/A N/A 1 if

aggre.

2 if

disag.

2 X/2 *100 Scheme is meant to incentivize disaggregation

19. Disbursements of current budget 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

J. Prior Disclosures of Information 25. Publication of information supplied

under RTI

0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

K. Prior Disclosures of Public Investments Under Section 9 of RTI Act

26. Notification of project

commencement


27. Pre-feasibility and feasibility

studies of projects


28. Terms and conditions of investment

(cost /benefit)


29. Detailed project costs 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

30. Monitoring and evaluation reports 0 1 2 3 4 4 X/4 *100 currency and comprehensiveness

SUM X/104*100 Score/Applicable Points * 100

ASSESSING USABILITY

Categories/Subcategories

Rating of Usability Overall Score

Language Ease of

Access

(English

only)**

(E)

Format***

(F) Max. Pints

% Score

(Z)

Content

75%

(C)

Usability

25%

(U)

Total English Sinhala Tamil Total (L)

D. Public Services:

10. Description of services offered

to the public

1 Point 1 Point 1 Point 3 0-2 Points 0-2 Points 7 L+E+F/7*10

0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

11. Access: info. on how to access a

particular service is published


0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

E. Public Policy Legislation and Regulation:

12. Circulars and regulations that

have been issued since 1 January

2016


0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

13. Legislation: % of legislation of

this PA is published


0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

14. Policy memoranda and draft

legislation: listed on website


0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

H. Budgets, Expenditure and Finances

18. Budget of current year 1 Point 1 Point 1 Point 3 0-2 Points 0-2 Points 7 L+E+F/7*10

0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

19. Disbursements of current budet 1 Point 1 Point 1 Point 3 0-2 Points 0-2 Points 7 L+E+F/7*10

0

Y*75% Z*25% C+U

Total score 30 30 30 X/90*100 X/60*100 X/60*100 49 X/210*100 [X/104*100]*

75%

[X/210*100]*

25%

C+U

ONLINE CONTENT DISCLOSURE:

STATUTORY VS REGULATORY

15%

85%

Section 8 and Section 9 RTI Act

Moderately Satisfactory

Moderately Unsatisfactory

5%

84%

11%

Regulation 20

Moderately satisfactory

Moderately unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Public Authority Percentage

Score (%) Band

Ministry of Public Administration 53 Moderately

Satisfactory Ministry of Health 47 Ministry of Education 44 Ministry of Justice 44 Ministry of National Policies and Economic Affairs 42

Ministry of Social Empowerment, Welfare and Kandyan

Heritage 42

Ministry of Internal Affairs, Wayamba Development

and Cultural Affairs 42

Ministry of Labour, Trade Union Relations and

Sabaragamuwa Development 41

Ministry of Higher Education 40 Moderately

Unsatisfactory Ministry of Rural Economy 40 Ministry of Defence 37 Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation 37

Ministry of Finance 37 Ministry of Lands and Parliamentary Reforms 37

Ministry of Foreign Affairs 36 Ministry of Sustainable Development and Wildlife 35

Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development 35

Ministry of Agriculture 35 Ministry of Petroleum Resources Development 34

Ministry of Mahaweli Development and Environment 33

Ministry of Sports 33 Ministry of Highways 33 Ministry of Disaster Management 32 Ministry of Industry and Commerce 32

Ministry of Postal Services 32

Ministry of National Co-existence, Dialogue and Official

Languages 32 Moderately

Unsatisfactory Ministry of Women and Child Affairs 31

Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 31

Ministry of Power and Renewable Energy 31

Ministry of Telecommunication and Digital Infrastructure 31

Ministry of Mass Media 31 Ministry of Plantation Industries 30 Ministry of Provincial Councils and Local Government 30

Ministry of Law and Order, and Southern Development 28

Ministry of Home Affairs 28 Ministry of Tourism Development and Christian Religious

Affairs 28

Ministry of Buddha Sasana 27 Ministry of Prison Reforms, Rehabilitation, Resettlement

and Hindu Religious Affairs 27

Ministry of Regional Development 27 Ministry of City Planning and Water Supply 25

Ministry of Public Enterprise Development 25

Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade 25

Ministry of Housing and Construction 23

Ministry of Ports and Shipping 22 Ministry of Special Assignments 22 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management 21

Ministry of National Integration and Reconciliation 20

Ministry of Primary Industries 19 Ministry of Science, Technology and Research 19

Ministry of Skills Development and Vocational Training 17

Ministry of Hill Country New Villages, Infrastructure and

Community Development 17

Ministry of Foreign Employment 15 Ministry of Development Assignments 15

Baseline of the online statutory proactive disclosure in 2017

ONLINE DISCLOSURE BY CATEGORY OF INFORMATION

Categories Percentage

Score (%)

Budgets, Expenditure and Finances 67

Institutional Information 49

Public Policy Legislation and Regulation 35

Organisational Information 27

Public Participation 20

Public Services 17

Operational Information and Decision-making Processes 16

Public Procurement and Subsidies 15

Categorisation of, and Systems for, Accessing Information 14

Prior Disclosures of Public Investments under section 9 of

RTI Act 13

Prior Disclosures of Information 0

Methodology: Scoring Usability

Language Accessibility

Ease of Access

Format

✔ One point awarded for each language.

✔ Total language score per subcategory = 3 points

✔ Click-rate a. 1 to 2 clicks = 2 points b. 3 to 5 clicks = 1 point c. Over 6 clicks = 0 points

✔ Total score per subcategory = 2 points

✔ Format of documents

a. Extraction friendly =2 points b. Low re-usability = 1 point c. Not reusable=0 points

✔ Total score per subcategory = 2 points

USABILITY

20%

75%

5% Moderately Satisfactory

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Public Authority Overall Usability

Percentage Score

(%)

Band

Ministry of Health 59 Moderately

Satisfactory Ministry of National Policies and

Economic Affairs 53

Ministry of Education 51 Ministry of Justice 50 Ministry of Finance 50 Ministry of Public Administration 50 Ministry of Social Empowerment,

Welfare and Kandyan Heritage 50

Ministry of Internal Affairs,

Wayamba Development and Cultural

Affairs

48

Ministry of Mahaweli Development

and Environment 43

Ministry of Higher Education 42

Top Ten Ministries in terms of usability of the information:

INFORMATION OFFICERS NETWORKING FORUM PROACTIVE … · Regulation Public Participation Public Procurement and Subsidies Budgets, Expenditure and Finances Categorisation of, and Systems

Documents