transparency progress in Canada - exciting news

It has been an exciting few past week with the federal government sharing two important announcements. The first is the sharing of intent to make it mandatory that companies in the extractive industries disclose all of their material payments to governments.The details are to be ironed out. In Canada, we have provincial securities regulators, and the federal government was the group announced the intention to make these changes. I am sure we have lots of provincial-federal negotiations around this to still wade through, but exciting nonetheless.

There are two possibilities here: the first is that we set up a federal securities regulator, like they have in the US. The second is that the federal government works with provincial governments to make this happen. I haven't delved into how this will actually occur, but on first pass, my guess is that the benefits for citizens around the world, and in Canada, would come faster if we were to do this through provincial regulators. It seems it would be a few years to set up and transition to a federal regulator, possibly delaying the benefits to citizens by a few years.

(Check out the Publish What You Pay coalition for more info on these developments.)

Finally, the second announcement, with a few sub-layer announcements. Canada, with the rest of the G8 nations, has signed onto the Open Data Charter, the best news of which is that it now makes publishing of data a default practice. This means that there would need to be a strong and real argument against not publishing data (for example, as per Canada's Privacy Act), for it not to be published. This flips it from having to argue to have data published.

Along with this came the launch of the federal governments new Open Data Licence, and Open Data Platform. Both of these are exciting, and make for great progress. Other people have said valuable things about these so just visit their blogs:
a. David Eaves shares his thoughts on both the charter here and the platform here.
b. Teresa Scassa has shared thoughts on the licence here.

An announcement was also made that the federal government will be running a National Open Data Challenge and an Appathon in this coming fall. This is exciting because it not only provides incentive for participation, but will also help raise the profile of both open data and the potential of 'contests' or 'challenges.' There is a massive amount of potential in tapping into the knowledge and abilities of Canadians who have skill sets in technology and subject-area knowledge through contest formats. The US has been doing some really neat things on this. Check out http://challenge.gov/ I'm excited to see where this goes.

We all need to be Unreasonable.

On Wednesday here in Washington, D.C, I was fortunate to attend the first day of UnreasonableAtState. The event was a really great opportunity for entrepreneurs from around the world to pitch their products to an audience at the State Department and from the broader international development and investor community.

The event showcased fifteen entrepreneurs from around the world who have designed technologies to combat important development challenges. It was great to see these entrepreneurs use their talents to pitch products and services that are designed to compete in the private sector. I have always been uncomfortable with technologies that are designed from afar and then rolled-out by non-governmental organizations or charities, often for free, that aim to solve development challenges. These initiatives regularly fail because the technologies aren't designed for the correct context or are over-designed, but are rolled out based on good intentions. The products presented at UnreasonableAtState were designed to compete in the open market place and were designed (for the most part) within the context which they would be used and sold. Operating in the private sector ensures the products will fail if the products aren't wanted or don't suit the need/solve the particular problem - which is what should happen to bad products.

I won't comment on the technologies specifically, I just suggest you check them out here: http://unreasonableatstate.com/companies/

[if I allow my engineering curiousity and excitement for cool stuff to come out, check out the companies: Damascus Fortune and Protei. I was also excited about: Inventure (credit scores for those without formailized banking services); Guru-G (tool for training teachers) and Aunt Bertha (tool for citizens to find out which social services are available in their neighbourhood/community)]

I also wanted to draw attention and send kudos to the State Department on partnering on the event. They partnered with a group called Unreasonale (check them out here: http://unreasonableinstitute.org/ ), which I noticed seems to have a very similar value set as Engineers Without Borders (the organization I work for). It is brave for a large institution to partner with a group as different from typical, as Unreasonable (as the name suggests!). It also appreciated that it took just four months to make the two-day event happen. The co-founder of Unreasonable, Daniel Epstein, approached the State Department just four-months before the event, and they were able to pull if off very successfully.

There is huge value in the government being this nimble, trying something new, partnering with a dynamic group like Unresonable, and giving the entrepreneurs a great opportunity to pitch their products at the State Department. There is also a lot of value in seeing this as a diplomatic tool - providing incredible entrepreneurs and growing leaders from around to interact with the US in such a positive way, will (I assume) pay huge dividends in promoting the image of the US abroad - it definitely fits Hilary Clinton's citizen diplomacy vision and model.

We need much more of this in foreign policy and international development.

[P.S. Also, the entrepreneurs had just come off of a voyage at sea. An incredible opportunity to have entrepreneurs and innovators spend time together to rapidly launch them forward. Check this out at:
UnreasonableAtSea: unreasonableatsea.com ]

Thoughts on an article on TechPresident: Is Open Gov working?

A friend tweeted the article linked below at me a few weeks ago, I didn't have time to think about it until today, but here are my quick thoughts.

Here is the link to the article: http://techpresident.com/news/23658/backchannel-open-government-working

The author shares some interesting thoughts, but I first want to make a comment on how 'open government' is framed at the beginning of the article:

The author is excluding all the other aspects of what I consider 'open government.' She excludes the other goals that are present in addition to holding government accountable. For example, there is a lot of potential for collaborative and participatory approaches that could create better solutions that government, citizens, and other parts of society can achieve. I don't think the success or failure of these types of open government initiatives can be determined by whether the accountability mechanisms between government and citizens are stronger. It should be measured by whether something better is created - like a solution to a previously unsolvable problem.

Yes, accountability of government to citizens, is a component of open government, but equating the two is neglecting to consider the other aspects.

Ignoring this though, because the author asks good questions about the accountability piece (that can also be used to think through success/failure of the other goals of the open government movement), I have a few comments about what she shared.

I believe that she is correct on her comments about on the focus of number of tweets, data sets, etc as measures of success or failure. The efforts have been too activity or output focused and not enough have been impact focused. We need to address this. There is evidence that an individuals participation in civic activity, leads to more civic activity. But, I do wonder if participants in these activities, "visualizing, hacking, and democratically minded, merrymaking" as the author puts it, see what they are doing as a civic activity. If they don't, then I doubt that the civic activity they have participated in, is leading to another one.

The question of: "How then can open government initiatives realistically engage both citizens and governments to work toward better outcomes?" is a great one. She talked about there being a lot of focus on either citizens or government, not both. I agree with her assessment.  In many conversations I have had (although not all), among government officials and citizens, there are two main points that come out: a lack of confidence in the others willingness to do more (or even do things differently), and a treatment of the other group, whether citizen(s) or government, as an unknown entity that they don't understand, and too often think negatively of. It's like the two groups have never interacted before and see each other as some strange monster they don't understand.

I think both parties need to begin thinking of the other as both a partner, and to use business language loosely, as a customer. How do we design our open gov projects and instruments to fit the world of the other group/customer: whether government or citizen? How can we change our designs to fit the constraints, culture, etc. of citizens or government? We need to understand the position of the other group and design our projects to both push the bounds but also fit the bounds of how they operate and what they can do.

I suggest you take a look at the article, and share your thoughts as well. Here is the link again: http://techpresident.com/news/23658/backchannel-open-government-working

By the People: March-April Venture-based Internship

By the People: March-April Venture-based Internship

E-mail me (ianfroude@ewb.ca) to apply by February 21st.

The Venture:
I am leading a venture at EWB Canada that is aiming to change the way international policy, including international development policy, is developed in Canada. The change I am seeking is that our international policy is developed collaboratively between government, civil society, academia, the private sector, and citizens. Only through a collaborative approach to policy development and implementation will we actually contribute to the resolution of some of the most difficult challenges facing the world.

I am looking for a person interested in helping accelerate the venture over the months of March and April. My hope is that the candidate will have experience in the following areas:
- Interest in and understanding of the federal government, policy development, and international issues
- Event Planning - We will be organizing several presentations, a possible evening event, and a full-day seminar/meeting with a small group here in Ottawa.
- Interested in the role of citizens in foreign policy development and on how to create a more collaborative environment for policy development.

Location: I am based in Ottawa and the events will be located here. It is ideal if the candidates are located in Ottawa but there is some flexbility within the Toronto to Montreal corridor.

Time Period: March and April 2013 (with flexibility on beginning and end dates, +/- two weeks)

Compensation: Remuneration is in the form of a living stipend (non-taxable benefit) of $200/week. You also have the option of living in EWB-provided accommodation in downtown Toronto (see location information above); if in Toronto, rent at the EWB house will be covered byEWB.

To apply, simply get in touch with me at ianfroude@ewb.ca by February 21st.

In your e-mail please share your experience, and your interest in this work.

NL Office of Public Engagement

Check out my Letter to the Editor in The Telegram, a newspaper based in the St. John's, Newfoundland:

http://www.thetelegram.com/Opinion/Letters-to-the-editor/2013-02-06/article-3171456/Public-engagement-is-more-than-just-Facebook/1

[Added February 14, 2013] "Here is the content of the letter to the editor:

The public discussion about the new Newfoundland and Labrador government Office of Public Engagement should be more than one about the financial costs, and definitely more than one about Twitter and Facebook. The discussion is too narrow.

Respectful and genuine public engagement can have profound positive effects in the short and long term on communities.

Public engagement has been seen to play a very important role in improving services, enabling collaboration to help tackle important problems like poverty, and has been shown to increase the tone of dialogue among politicians and citizens.

Public engagement not only includes releasing data, or access to information laws, although both are important components.

Involving people

It also means actually “engaging” the public in a conversation about the problems we face as a province and in our own communities.

It is also not only “the government talking to citizens.”

Effective public engagement is a conversation among diverse groups and individuals, whether they are government officials, politicians, citizens, members of non-profits, and even the private sector.

It can lead to better solutions and approaches to important problems.

From James McLeod’s article, “OPE won’t cost anything new: minister,” Feb. 4, Liberal MHA Jim Bennett’s comment that “the best thing the government could do to engage the public is to just provide services that people want” is too short-sighted.

Public engagement can not only lead to strong improvements to public services by enabling strong feedback loops, but it can also help identify missing services or enable other non-

governmental organizations and individuals to play important roles in solving problems faced by communities.

Nearby examples

We don’t have to look far to see the positive effects of public engagement.

Starting in 2008, New Brunswick ran a comprehensive public engagement process to build a poverty reduction strategy.

They used an effective combination of public dialogues, stakeholder roundtables and action planning to develop their strategy: Overcoming Poverty Together: The New Brunswick Economic and Social Inclusion Plan.

As also highlighted in a recent book, “Bringing Citizen Voices to the Table” by Carolyn Lukensmeyer, the founder of America Speaks, whose “mission is to reinvigorate American Democracy by engaging citizens in the public decision-making that most impacts their lives,” Newfoundland and Labrador’s rural secretariat has also been leading the way on effective public engagement.

Through the citizen-based regional councils and provincial stakeholder-based councils, the secretariat has provided spaces for genuine policy dialogue.

Let’s shift the discussion to include more than the financial costs and more than Twitter feeds and Facebook pages.

Let’s talk about how we can better and more often use genuine public engagement practices and approaches, as have been used in New Brunswick and here at home, to improve life in Newfoundland and Labrador." 

[February 14, 2013 addition end.]

It was in response to this article: "OPE won't cost anything new"
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2013-02-04/article-3169813/OPE-won%26rsquot-cost-anything-new%3A-minister/1

and the launch of the new Office of Public Engagement in NL.

Here is some information on the OPE:
"The Premier also announced the establishment of the Office of Public Engagement within Executive Council, which will include the Rural Secretariat, the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat, the Youth Engagement office, the Strategic Partnership Initiative, and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Office.

“The new mandate of the Office of Public Engagement will ensure every department can launch effective, targeted and interactive public consultations, including social media and rich information resources,” said Premier Dunderdale. “The office will build on the existing strengths of current functions and coordinate the efforts of departments to increase access to information resources. It is a clear demonstration of our commitment to open, accountable and transparent government which includes pro-active disclosure of information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2012/exec/1019n08.htm

Some language and ideas I am playing with: 'serving the public' and 'special understanding/capability groups'

Some language and ideas I am playing with…

1.

If we reframe ‘public’ as ‘citizens, civil society organizations, government, etc.’ – in essence, citizens + public institutions, can we change the mindset of all of these folks to that of “public servants?” It might be framed as individual citizens and organizations that think about serving the whole ‘public.’ So not, public servants in the sense of 'people who work in government,' but more 'public servants' in the sense that 'they serve the public.' (again, a reminder that 'public' here would essentially mean 'citizens, CSOs, gov, etc...' or maybe 'society' as a whole).

Thoughts?

2.

A short e-mail conversation between a friend and I a few months ago:

I had just shared some of the ideas behind the work I am doing so he was asking questions about it.

Friend: So we determine a revised or new path by gathering as much information about an issue from as many people as possible (or reasonable). I keep thinking about my good friend who said change management is nothing more than the engineering of consent -- the message is there must not be pre determined solutions. 

Me: If I understand you correctly, yes, but pushing it beyond just information gathering. The central tenant of this is that you need different types of expertise and view from many parts of the problem to come up with a solution to a complex problem. I am proposing that we build processes and approaches that bring these different points of view together. I also believe there is a lot of value in deliberation by people with a view of the system. The very act of guiding people through a problem solving process will lead us to better solutions. Right now each group (in many cases) is tackling the problem from their own angle and do not have the knowledge or expertise from another actor to improve their action.

Friend: Secondly is this any different from the much maligned "special interest groups " on a broader scale?

Me: It is kind of like special interest groups. But it is different on two dimensions. [Many of] the people I want a part of this aren't necessarily organized - it may be a Sudanese man in Scarborough who runs a shoe shine shop. He has an important perspective to add to how Canada is operating in the Sudan and South Sudan.

The second difference is that these are more "special understanding/capability groups [and] individuals” [people or organizations with a particular value to add] rather than “special interest” groups. People coming together not because they have an interest that they are advocating for, but they are bringing a particular value add to contribute to the problem solving and/or action.

I do agree that special interest groups play a very important role and can often be game changers. Civil society has a massive role in societal problem solving. My interest is in bringing together others who aren't associated with interest groups - and bring them together with the government, with folks from other countries, and with folks from interest groups  - and have them deliberate and take action together. 

Policy Forum on Global Development: What can open government contribute to community and economic development?

Several weeks ago in Calgary, Alberta, tangentially with the Engineers Without Borders annual national conference, I co-hosted an event called the “Policy Forum on Global Development.” I co-hosted with two other teams at EWB: the aid effectiveness advocacy team based in Toronto, Ontario, and the Governance and Rural Infrastructure team based in Tamale and Accra, Ghana.

The topic of the event was “How can an open government contribute to community and economic development?” We aimed to have a focus on both the larger questions of the ‘why’ behind open government and the ‘what and how’ of open government. Our other aim was to bring together a diverse set of people from around the world to discuss the question. We were very lucky to have participants and speakers from Canada, the USA, Finland, Ghana, and Malawi.

Here is a picture of the forum: Joonas Pekkanen, one of the panelists who spoke on a panel with Ms. Lois Brown and Mr. Samuel Yebeoh, is on the screen at the top left of the photo. Joonas spoke about his Open Ministry work in Finland. You can find more about his exciting work on Open Gov in Finland here.  Joonas tweets here @joonaspekkanen

Here is the definition of ‘open government’ that we shared with participants prior to the event:

‘An open government is one that works with its citizens, civil society, and other actors to collaboratively solve important problems faced by their society. [1]

Open government is built on three intertwined foundational principles:

Information and data transparency: the public is easily able to locate, understand, and use information about governmental activities (eg. Decision making, policy formulation, service provision, results).

Public engagement: members of the public, equally and without discrimination, are able to influence, develop, contribute to, monitor, and evaluate governmental activities.

Accountability: There are robust policies, mechanisms, and practices that enable the public to hold the government accountable for its actions and commitments.

Open government is not the same as open data. The provision of open data alone does not make a government open. For instance, governments can provide open data on politically neutral topics and remain opaque on others, or lack mechanisms for citizens to hold them accountable.

Similarly, governments can pursue the foundational principles of open government without utilizing the new technologies that they are often associated with, such as the internet. However, technologies are important tools that can support governments in their pursuit of openness.’

Instead of sharing my own commentary in this post (I’ll do that shortly in another) I would like to point you towards several other places on the web where thoughts have been shared about the event:

Linda Raftree, one of the panellists  shares the ideas she presented on this post: http://lindaraftree.com/2013/01/18/open-data-and-critical-consciousness/

Ms. Raftree also did us all a favor and shared what she thought were the most interesting points from the day-long discussion here: http://lindaraftree.com/2013/01/16/16-thoughts-on-open-government-and-community-and-economic-development/

Ms. Lois Brown, the Parliamentary Secretary to Canada’s Minister for International Cooperation also spoke on a panel during the event. Because the event was held under Chatham House rules to encourage honest discussion, I cannot share what Ms. Brown spoke about. What I will do however, is point you towards the speech she gave to the entire conference delegation. It can be found on her website here: http://www.loisbrown.ca/media_/riding-news/keynote-speech-at-engineers-without-borders-national-conference

I wasn’t in the room for Ms. Brown’s speech, but what I did hear, is that she received at least three rounds of applause from the audience for the Canadian government’s commitment to aid transparency through the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). The audience was full of 600 young Canadian activists, who just a year and a half before, were holding events and meeting with Members of Parliament across Canada to advocate that Canada sign onto IATI.

[January 30th addition: Owen Scott (of Development Gateway), has written a post about the event as well. Check it out here: http://www.developmentgateway.org/news/how-can-we-make-open-data-meaningful-citizens ]

If you are interested in hearing more about this policy forum or have comments on any of the outcomes or content, please do leave a comment or get in touch.

Thanks to both Samantha Burton and Merlin Chatwin for the fun we had in organizing this event together.

Merlin tweets here: https://twitter.com/MerlinChatwin

Sam tweets here: https://twitter.com/ASamBurton I tweet at @ianfroude

[1] Our definition of open government is based on a number of widely-cited sources, including: Open Government Partnership, Open Government Declaration, September 2011; Harlan Yu and David G. Robinson, The New Ambiguity of “Open Government”, UCLA Law Review Discurse 59:178 (2012); Beth Noveck, What’s in a Name? Open Gov and Good Gov, Huffington Post, 4 June 2011; Nathaniel Heller, A Working Definition of “Open Government’, 22 May 2012.