Website NEWS

RTI Workshop in Mexico=

A four day wor= kshop entitled “Lessons from the Implementation of the Transparency and Access to Information ATI) Law in Mexico took place in Mexico city on April 21^st-24= ^th 2008. It was organized by the Mexican Federal Institute for Access to Public Information (IFAI) in collaboration with the World Bank. A delegation of six participants from Bangladesh comprised of government officials from the ministries of Local Government, = Law, and Primary Education and NGO representatives from Transparency Internation= al Bangladesh and the Manusher Jonno Foundation participated in this workshop. There was participation from a Honduran delegation as well, made up of both government and non government representatives.

The objectives of the workshop were: i) to observe and learn from the achievements and challenges that Mexico has experienced in the adoption and implementation of access to information legislation; and ii) to promote dialogue between ac= cess to information practitioners, government institutions and civil society organizations in order to identify common areas for future collaboration.

The major focuses of the workshop can be broadly categorized as a) historical perspectives of ATI in Mexico, roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders particularly IFAI, CSOs, etc. b) operational issues = such as reporting, budgeting, infrastructural and technological aspects and c) visits to some specific ministries to get an overview on their functioning = and to become familiar with ATI at the regional level.

Among the issues considered during the different sessions, IFAI̵= 7;s institutional design and legitimization process was discussed since its creation, taking into account the frequency of turnover of Commissioners and staff. Additionally, mechanis= ms for the nomination and removal of IFAI commissioners were discussed. The issue of the disclosure of information on salaries and remuneration of employees, which is a requireme= nt for all public bodies as established by the Mexico’s Transparency and Access to Information Law (LTAIP), as well as the management of irrelevant information requests (LTAIP does not ask requesters to specify a motive for their inquiry, and therefore all requests must receive a response), were considered during the sessions. The Mexican Law’s provisions regarding the release of “public versions” and the partial release of information of documents that may contain confidential or reserved information were discussed. Also explored = were IFAI’s resolutions on appeals cases related to public trust funds, bankruptcy, and personal information of the deceased, among others.

Some major features of Mexico’s ATI law are: a) It was enacted= in June 2002 and IFAI was created by law to review appeals, promote awareness raising and monitor implementation; b) it has a policy of proactive disclos= ure of information held by federal government, its departments and entities that use public funds except some classified information and personal data; c) Mexico has designed and introduced user friendly electronic platforms to process requests for information and track request status; d) all departmen= ts and entities covered under this law have liaison units to process requests,= in addition to a coordination committee for department decisions on requested information; e) nationals and foreigners alike may use the ATI law to access information; f) departments or entities may only charge a fee to receive information when reproduction is necessary for the requested information. Information can be requested and obtained through internet and by post; e) = within 20 working days the liaison unit is supposed to notify the applicant about requested information.

In particular, the use of electronic systems for the management of information requests, such as INFOMEX and ZOOM, as well as the web PORTAL (mentioned as item c above), and their advantages for monitoring and report= ing generated interest among the participants. At the same time, challenges were discussed regarding the privacy and protection of personal information in the case of= a cyber attack or breach of the system. Another concern raised, in view of the use of electronic tools by IF= AI, was the sizeable percentage of the population that lacks access to the Inte= rnet and the implications this could have in terms of marginalized groups and th= eir ability of exercise of the right to information. This concern could also be= a relevant issue in Ba= ngladesh.

Alfonso Lujambio, IFAI Commissioner President, highlighted the Institute and INFOMEX as two key fe= atures of the ATI regime in Mexico that contributed to give the Mexican experience an international profile.

Another issue that generated interest was the role of the Access to Information Offices (Unidades de Enlace), their work in the interior of the country, their responsibility for proactive transparency or disclosure of information requirements, and their role in the training of employees within their own agencies. Related to this last issue, the challenges presented by= the training of civil servants due to the high degree of mobility among them we= re also pointed out.

On the fourth working day a visit was made to the Morelos Institute = for Statistics and Public Information (IMIPE) in the city of Cuernavaca, state of Morelos. The IMIPE= is the body in charge of ensuring enforcement of the ATI law in the state of Morelos (as Mexico is a Federal state, the Federal law coexists with 32 separate state laws)

In Morelos, the challenges faced by IMIPE were mentioned, such as the under-allocation of agreed upon resources, the attempts to apply monetary sanctions, as well as attempts by local officials to have information commissioners arrested, and the substantial increase in the fees for copying documents, all of which effec= t the exercise of this new law.

A roundtable was organized with practitioners from Mexican civil soc= iety to discuss the role of civil society in the use of the law. Upon reflecting= on the cooperation between IFAI and civil society, a frequent user of the law asserted that despite differences between IFAI and CSO’s “we recognize each other as allies on t= he most important points, beyond whatever difference we may have.”. He added, “= while IFAI carries out the work of promo= ting the law because of a legal obligation to do so, CSOs do it because of our conviction.” Two other civil society practitioners made reference= to the challenges and efforts that grass roots groups can face in trying to exercise their right to access information.

The Comunidades Project, financed by the Hewlett Foundation, was also highlighted. This project has demonstrated that while technology can be a challenge to access, it was not the most important challenge, and was able = to be overcome. Local "caciquisimo", or ability of regional power-holders to intimidate, fear of reprisal, and the lack of trust in government have been the principal challenges. It was also asserted that sm= all and isolated communities have only limited interaction with IFAI because for dealing with local issues, often times the relevant interlocutor is the oversight body at a state or local, not federal level.

In this contex= t, Marcos Mendiburu, from the World Bank Institute’s Media, Information,= and Governance Program, underlined the need to explore synergies between the national legal framework for access to information in countries, and ATI, transparency, and accountability requirements in their development programs= , so that beneficiaries are able to receive the most information possible. This = must be done, however, keeping in mind that the challenges that face access to information are multidimensional and must be addressed within the framework= of each country’s specific national context.

Ou= tcomes gained by participating countries from this workshop are worth mentioning. = It has provided clear knowledge and practical experiences about what sorts of infrastructure, workable mechanism, extent of use of human resource and budgetary implications and other factors would be required for ensuring effective implementation of ATI. Overall, the opportunity to exchange know= ledge and learn across regions was a rich one. Me= xico has been, in many ways an exemplary case, and countries, including Bangladesh, that are striving toward a more open and productive information environment can = take away important lessons from their successes as well as challenges.