Open Government Plan: was voice of civil society heard?

The President approved Action Plan on promotion of open government for 2016-2018. The preparation of this document was given a start in fall last year. Officials organized several discussions with participation of civil society and collected proposals during last 6 months of preparation period. I personally participated in 3 such meetings representing Support to Economic Initiatives and had some conclusions; just did not want to share with them before approve of Action Plan.

First it should be mentioned that in period of hard pressure towards independent CSO in country that started in 2014, and created obstacles the importance of Open Government global platform that became enough popular globally was very high. This initiative was made by number of leading countries including US in September 2011. The mission of platform is making governments more transparent, accountable and responsible towards citizens. The Open Government Declaration signed by 69 states in 2011 says “that people all around the world are demanding more openness in government. They are calling for greater civic participation in public affairs, and seeking ways to make their governments more transparent, responsive, accountable, and effective”.

Political leaders that signed Document declared about commitments in 4 directions that will help to achieve those goals: 1) increasing accessing to information on government actions 2) Increasing civic participation in governance issues 3) Application of high ethics in public management 4) application of new technologies for more accountable and open government.

Countries that want to become members of OGP international platform should meet minimum requirements of 4 criteria: a) fiscal transparency b) access to information c) income declaration of state officials d) public participation in management

The main opportunity the Platform opens for civil society is obligatory involvement of civil society to the process of national action plan development and implementation. In fact countries where civil society does not exist or is not accepted as equal party cannot be OGP member. It should be admitted that in 2011 when Azerbaijan joined OGP the environment around CSO was much better; there were not any obstacles for registering grants, bank operations within projects without Ministry of Justice registration were possible, NGOs did not face any problems to organize discussions on various topics and rent any business center. Starting from June 2014 these opportunities were taken from CSO organizations. Most probably if current situation existed in 2011 Azerbaijan would not become OGP member.             

In 2 days In OGP International Platform meeting in South Africa Azerbaijan’s status will be discussed. There are serious concerns of OGP Steering Committee regarding Azerbaijan and various discussions have been held.

One of main concerns is related to new OGP Action Plan. With 4 months delay President finally approved 2016-2018 Action Plan last week. But concerns are not related to just approval of this document; involvement of independent CSO t this process and consideration of their proposals were among expectations. I will talk about fulfilment of this condition separately.

Another concern of OGP International Platform was related to legal obstacles for operating of CSO and political imprisoners. These problems (especially creating enabling environment for CSO) were sounded during March visit of foreign experts to Azerbaijan.

Unfortunately developments in these directions were not satisfactory. It is true that most of political imprisoners were freed, but the list did not include several well-known conscience imprisoners. There were also positive improvements related to civil society especially those who represent EITI Coalition; bank account were unblocked and customs checking were cancelled. However no actions were made on most important issues – easy registration of grant agreements and unlimited collaboration of foreign donor organizations with local organizations.

In such situation two options are possible; Either Government declares interest to keep its OGP status and presents “roadmap” for solution of above mentioned problems or Steering Committee makes country’s status inactive for some period (maximum for one year). According to experts, in case concerns are not solved during inactivity period, the country can be fully delisted.

Finally several points on just approved National Action Plan; One of the main points is involvement of independent to this process. But involvement does not just mean participation, but it also considers hearing voice of CSO. Participation can indeed be passive; NGOs can come, participate in discussions and even make suggestions, but their ideas won’t be considered later. Active participation means invitation, listening and being heard – at least some of suggestions should be taken into account. In other words, participation is not passive but active involvement process.    

Azerbaijan government’s draft OGP Action Plan was discussed in February and then in March. Both meetings were open and many NGOs took part there. Final discussion was a “focus group” type and held with participation of limited number of experts in April. During those discussions our organization made number of suggestions and presented them in written way to authorized agencies. So, what’s outcome? Are there differences between draft and final OGP NAPs?

Let me first touch technical side. The approach of CSO from the very beginning was that Anti-Corruption and OGP Action plans should be combined under Single Action Plan. Most OGP countries do like that, since it is important for later comparisons. This suggestion was taken into account – draft version included 2 separate documents, and in final version anti-corruption activities have become part of OGP national Action Plan.

We also had suggestion on structure of the document – we considered commitments having impact on government-individual relationships (such as improvement of electronic services) should not be included as separate commitment. We suggested they should be classified as technical means for achieving transparency, accountability and participation, and not as separate commitments. However the government has included separate section on electronic services to OGP Action Plan.

3 fundamental suggestions were taken into account in final version; i)creating environment for establishment of OGP CSO Platform where independent NGOs will participate, ii) ensuring fiscal transparency iii) practical application of system for property declaration of officials.

However many suggestions on increasing accountability and transparency of state agencies were not included to final NAP. We think those suggestions were extremely important for legal reforms of public management according to international principles related to Open Government Partnership. So what those suggestions were? 

·         Information about founders of private companies that receive state budget funds through procurement process should not be considered commercial secret;  

Publication of monthly reports on implementation of total budget (state budget, SWF budget and Social Defense Fund budget);

·        Preparation of extended report on state budget implementation (not just 5-10 page summary, but 800-1000 page budget pack) and presenting it to Parliament;

·   Disclosing information on forecasted and implemented state budget at region and town level; 

·   Obligatory publication of budgets of all state education and heath institutions;

·     Online publication of full text of all reports of Chamber of Accounts on use of public funds;  

·      Establishing “procurement” section at web site of all state agencies. Publication information on all purchased goods (services), their types, amount, value and contractors;

·     Establishing “budget” section at web sites of all regional and executive power institutions. Publishing information on structure of public revenues and spending and investment projects funded by public means;  

· Publication of investment projects of State Oil Company;

 

    Publication of individual financial reports of joint ventures and subsidiaries of State Oil Company;

·   Publication of beneficiary ownership information on all extractive companies; 

·    improving reporting on foreign borrowing of state companies. Publication separate information on government guaranteed debts and unguaranteed debts, debt amount by lending organizations and allocated projects.;

·       Publication separate report on investment projects of State companies;

·      Publication of separate report on procurement operations of state companies;

·      Publication of financial information on authorized people at state companies;

·       Preparation and application of single standards and methodology on reporting of government and its separate structures. Working out minimum standards for reports of central and local execute power institutions on their annual activities;

·   Preparation and application of result oriented reporting methodology

These suggestions target establishment of open government system from down to upper level. Citizens will not believe in establishment of open and transparent management principles in central government once they do not witness same at their village, region or city or in their children’s school. Our suggestions aimed at transparency and accountability in all management cycles, from down to upper levels and commitments on institutional and legal reforms within National Action Plan.

Despite all shortcomings and wrong steps we think distance of Azerbaijan from OGP will be a damage for both country and independent CSO in country.

Most satisfied from such situation will be those forces trying to keep Azerbaijan apart from developed world. EITI, OGP and Eastern Partnership remain the only bridges connecting Azerbaijan to civil world. If these bridges are destroyed there won’t remain any independent and objective civic activists in nearest future.