It's gonna happen anyway

I spend a good part of my waking hours thinking about, writing and working on aid transparency. But quite frankly, aid transparency is only peanuts. Globally there are 30 countries who receive more than 10% of their gross national income (GNI) from aid (Worldbank 2008). For only 12 countries the amount of official aid exceeds 20% of their GNI. So in the context of development and global poverty alleviation tracking revenues in extractive industries and monitoring national budget is much more important.

But aid transparency is not only one of many factors influencing the global fight against poverty. We should regard aid transparency also as part of a broader open data movement. Open government initiatives in the UK, the USA, Greece, Finland and Brazil, and the adoption of freedom of information acts demonstrate that there is a shift in the relationship between citizens and government administration.

The increase of e-government and e-participation initiatives are symptoms of the same shift. So when we discuss aid transparency, the question is not, if donors will have to make fundamental changes in how they share information and how they engage with citizens. Personally, I am convinced that transparency and open data will come anyway. The question is only how long and painful this change process is and how we can make sure it actually improve aid projects.

Administrators in development cooperation and in other sectors may argue against open data and open processes for a number of reasons, but they are fighting an up-hill fight. What are the indicators for this trend. The precursor of open data is the publication of public sector information, which is not necessarily legally or technically open or which can be sold to third parties. In November 2003 the European Parliament and the European Council released a directive on the re-use of public sector information. While this directive did not call on member states to publish public sector information, it presupposed the existence of this data and formulated guidelines in order to harmonise the way public sector information is published. Currently this directive is reviewed and will be updated in 2012. National governments have translated the directive into national laws, for example the Informationsweiterverwendungsgesetz in Germany. Public sector information is valuable for different purposes. One purpose is transparency and accountability. Government should provide access to public sector information so that citizens can hold it to account. This argument is often advanced in the aid transparency debate. Another value of public sector information is to improve government processes and effectiveness. The concept of e-government, making government better through the use of the internet, relies partly on the availability of public sector information. In the aid context there is some evidence, that donors themselves will benefit from open data and open processes. The third reason for public sector information appears to be the most prominent reason for the European Commission. Making public sector information available to third parties, for free or against fees, can result in important economic opportunities and growth. At a conference of the European Public Sector Information Platform (EPSI) on the re-use of public sector information in Berlin, one administrator  presented the example of the government releasing public data of addresses in Denmark in 2002. According to a study of the Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority the financial benefit of this measure between 2005 and 2009 has been 0ver 61 Million Euros while the implementation costs over the same period amounted to 2 Million Euros. For 2010 the estimated additional economic benefit is 14 million Euros and the costs 0,2 Million Euros. Apart from this astonishing return on investment this examples illustrates another very important point. In discussion on aid transparency critics often question the usefulness of publishing data (open or not). Who would be interested in this data? It is useless for stakeholders outside the administration. As Morton Lind from the Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority pointed out, this was exactly the criticism against publishing address data in Denmark. It is impossible, Lind explained, to assess the value and the possible applications of data before its release.

Germany is certainly not at the forefront of enhanced government-citizen relationship, but also here, the value of public sector information is increasingly recognised. In his country report to the EPSI platform, Daniel Dietrich, co-founder of the Open-Data Network in Berlin cites a 2010 white paper including plans to develop an open government strategy and the Dresdner Vereinbarung (2010) containing plans for a centralised access point for public sector information as first steps in the right direction. Open Government is also gaining increased attention by political parties. An excellent example of improved access to public information is the German Uportal collecting information on environmental issues from over 2,5 million websites and 500.000 databases from over 340 institutions and organisations in Germany. Open Government, including access to public sector information, is a slow process in Germany. Discourse on costs and benefits of open data are controversial. Opinions on how open government should be are diverse. Politicians are very cautious in granting more rights to citizens in an information society.But in the end, I don't see how the general trend can be stopped or reversed.

I am not aware of any initiative at the federal level in Germany, that is so advanced in terms of transparency and open data as the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) signed by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). If the BMZ implemented its commitments to IATI, it would certainly be an information society pioneer in Germany. It would make sense economically. It would make sense politically. And it would make a small but precious contribution to fight global poverty!