Project Evaluation: Open Data and Right to Information


Report |
During 2014 and 2015, CIPESA implemented a project aimed at empowering citizens in East Africa to use Right to Information (RTI) laws to lodge requests and document their experiences through the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The project further aimed to undertake awareness raising and network building activities to promote the right to information in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, and create awareness among lawmakers on regressive policies and practices that undermine proactive disclosures. The project also planned on network building to be achieved through the sharing of experiences gained from the three countries among the engaged network of change actors across the region.
Since the closure of project activities, an evaluation was commission to establish the achievements, outcomes and challenges registered by the project during the period January 2014 – December 2015. The evaluation assessed the appropriateness, effectiveness and outcomes of the project in relation to its planned objectives.
The evaluation focused on project activities in Uganda and the use of Alaveteli – an Open source platform that enables citizens to request for information with the replies recorded for all to see on the AskYourGov (AYG) website (www.askyourgov.ug) as the key technology medium, as well as social media namely Facebook and Twitter.
Key findings
The use of the AYG platform by citizens is still low, compared to alternative Freedom of Information (FOI) channels (for example, a respondent at the Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development reported that he receives/responds to approximately 32 requests a day by phone, face to face, or paper-based request forms), and has not grown over the two years. As well, the response from MDAs is below average. Though there is political will from the Office of the Prime Minister in Uganda, ownership of the platform and its continued functionality is still the responsibility of partners – Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC) and CIPESA and does not seem to have yet taken root within most Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA).
Recommendations

  1. Consider a phased approach to implementing the AYG platform in MDAs. Adopting a more systematic phased approach to implementation and roll out, and contextualized to the specific needs of each agency could help address the unique MDA contexts and ensure a more effective use of the platform. Rather than spreading efforts (of particularly limited resources) and adopt a blanket approach to the implementation of the portal, a phased systematic approach that involves a few MDAs coming on board at a time is recommended. For example the evaluation shows that the majority of the FOI requests are related to land, taxes and inquiries on internship and recruitment. This could be interpreted in two ways: – (i) that these issues could be the most pressing information needs of citizens currently; or (ii) that the effective response from the respective MDAs has created citizen demand. This could give some insight to justify a phased approach in prioritizing MDAs to work with on the AYG platform.
  1. Build an Advocacy network of CSOs to sustain the demand for government responsiveness on the AYG platform. Such a network is likely to realize a much stronger and sustained voice in mobilizing, advocating and lobbying continuous Government’s responsiveness on the AYG platform.
  1. Sustain stakeholders’ engagement activities (awareness raising and capacity building). Some of the issues that hinder requesting and disseminating information by the rights holders (citizens) and duty bearers (government officials) respectively are the culture of secrecy among duty bearers, and the limited understanding of the RTI laws among other things. Changing such individual and organization norms, cultures and practices takes time. Sustained engagement of rights holders and duty bearers is therefore very critical and future projects should avail sufficient resources for this.
  1. Make the platform more inclusive to encourage usability in different contexts. Future implementations could adopt a more inclusive approach that looks into mixing ICT platforms such as the web-based platform, SMS, as well as integrate a back-end function that can easily be manipulated to enable agencies to coordinate and centrally manage information requests from the various modes of delivery i.e. the back-end function should be in position to manage, monitor and keep track of all requests that come into the agencies irrespective of the mode of delivery. This should encourage usability by all classes of stakeholders, while the back-end would provide for easy management and tracking of requests.

Lessons Learned

  1. The Success of the AYG platform in an MDA is dependent on a number of pre-requisites that include functional business processes, policies, infrastructure, and human resources related to information disclosure. This kind of organization context makes it easy for speeding up the uptake of the AYG platform as it complements already ongoing work and may not appear as an additional burden to MDA officials.
  1. The AYG platform could be more effective if its roll out is prioritized to target specific information needs of citizens. This prioritization could be based on a number of factors that may include: – findings of a needs assessment of Citizen Information needs, readiness of MDAs, National priorities defined in strategies like National Development Plans among others
  1. The passing of relevant RTI laws in the country is key in providing an enabling environment to implement a project of this nature

Download and read the full evaluation report here.

The Internet Shutdown In Ethiopia Costs The Country Approximately $500,000 A Day In Lost GDP


By Tefo Mohapi |
In October 2016, Ethiopia declared a state of emergency which saw it impose certain measures that included telecommunications, media and Internet shutdowns along with travel restrictions on diplomats and a dusk-to-dawn curfew, to name a few of the measures implemented. The state of emergency, effective from 08 October 2016, comes as a result of about five hundred people being killed in protests in the Oromiya region surrounding the capital Addis Ababa and other parts of Ethiopia since 2015. This is, as reported, after anger over a development scheme for the capital sparked broader anti-government demonstrations over politics and human rights abuses.
Ethiopia is not new to Internet shutdowns with another Internet shutdown taking place as recently as July 2016 with the government stating that it took this drastic measure to prevent leakages during the national exams.
Internet Shutdowns Across Africa
At the recently held Forum for Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 in Kampala, Uganda a panel on the opening day discussed “Internet Shutdowns and Internet Rights” and asked the pertinent question – “Where do we draw the line?

Internet Shutdowns CIPESA FIFAfrica16
Panel on “Internet Shutdowns and Internet Rights” featuring Ephraim Kenyanito, Yosr Jouini, Arthur Gwagwa, Arsene Tungali and Wisdom Donko.

In 2016 alone, the panel noted, Africa has experienced Internet shutdowns or social media bans in several countries including Zimbabwe, Uganda as well as Ethiopia. Notably, these shutdowns or bans typically revolved around political unrest or elections.
Furthermore, as noted during the discussion, Internet shutdowns can cost a country’s economy quite a substantial amount of money with the 2016 Uganda Internet shutdowns rumored to have cost the country $26 million considering it also involved the shutdown of mobile money services for several days around the 2016 Ugandan Presidential election period.

  • But what exactly is an Internet shutdown?
  • What role do telcos play during an Internet shutdown?
  • Are we perhaps overstating the severity of Internet shutdowns considering low Internet penetration rates?

$500,000 A Day
Technically speaking, and as witnessed across different countries in Africa and as discussed on the panel, an Internet shutdown usually involves a government’s ministry typically issuing a letter or instruction to the telcos and mobile service providers operating in that country requesting they cut off Internet access completely (or specific services) to their customers.
In Ethiopia, it is even easier for the government to effect an Internet shutdown as the East African country has only one telecommunications company, Ethio Telecom, which is also state-owned and the only provider of Internet access in the country. This further raises the question of who should be entrusted with provision open and unfettered Internet access to citizens. That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, as Internet shutdowns come with a cost to a country’s economy. Continuing with Ethiopia as a case study, is perhaps the impact and cost of the Internet shutdown exaggerated given that the country only has an Internet penetration rate of 2,9% (as per 2015 Freedom House Report)?

Ethiopia Freedom House 2015
Ethiopia Feedom of the Net 2015 Report

A recent report released on 27 October 2016 by the Global Network Initiative along with Deloitte suggests that the current ongoing Internet shutdown in Ethiopia is costing the country approximately $500,000 a day. The report explains that, in dollar terms, it is estimated that for the average highly-connected country, the per-day impact of a complete Internet shutdown would amount to US$23.6 million per 10 million people. For the average country with medium and low levels of connectivity, the estimated GDP impact amounts to US$6.6 million and US$0.6 million per 10 million people, respectively.

“This analysis suggests that the ongoing Internet shutdown in Ethiopia, a low-connectivity country with a population of 94 million and a per capita GDP of US$505, is costing its economy just under half-a-million US dollars a day in lost GDP. “The economic impact of disruptions to Internet connectivity 2016 Report

The report sheds light on the impact on Internet shutdowns and illustrates that irrespective of low Internet penetration rates in country’s like Ethiopia, the impact is still quite high given how the Internet is used in various economic activities.
Furthermore, it is encouraging to hear the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemn Internet shutdowns in their recent resolution.
The United Nations Human Rights Council stated that it condemns unequivocally measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online in violation of international human rights law.” Specifically calling on all States to “refrain from and cease such measures.”
This article was first published at iafrikan on October 28, 2016.

Africans Want Cross-Border Data Access Reform, But They Might Get Left Out


By Mailyn Fidler |
At the first session of the 2016 Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa, questions about cross-border data access—usually a dry topic—took center stage. The moderator and participants grilled representatives from Google and Facebook about the fairness of limited African access to African data held by U.S. companies, invoking the need for greater “internet sovereignty.” These remarks contrasted with one year ago, when I could find no one at this forum talking about African data access problems. Africans are now thinking about this issue, but the U.S. government is not really considering Africa as it debates the future of cross-border data requests. The standards outlined in the Obama administration’s draft proposal will be most easily met by favored U.S. partners; the United Kingdom appears to be first in line for a deal. Left-out countries will have few viable options for accessing data and may turn to damaging alternatives.
Background: A Year of MLAT Reform
The past year brought cross-border data access into the limelight. Countries have grown frustrated with the primary mechanism for accessing data held by U.S. tech companies: Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs). As communications increasingly depend on U.S. tech companies, data needed for run-of-the-mill criminal investigations often resides in the United States, and countries turn to MLATs for access. MLATs with the United States generally require countries to meet U.S. legal standards when seeking data stored in the United States.
The MLAT process is usually slow and opaque, frustrating countries using it. It can take six weeks to ten months to process requests, depending on the request’s complexity and compliance with U.S. legal standards. Countries also take issue with U.S. law essentially dictating global practices. Countries have sought other troubling means of accessing data, with the UK seeking extraterritorial powers, Russia exploring data localization, and Brazil threatening companies with legal action.
Over the past year, efforts to reform cross-border data access have progressed. The United States and the United Kingdom have negotiated a proposed agreement, and the Department of Justice released draft legislation to make such agreements possible for approved countries. (The legislation is unlikely up for consideration until after the U.S. election.)
Africans Want Improved Data Access
Although Africa currently has low levels of internet penetration, it also has some of the highest internet use growth rates. Internet policy issues are increasingly important to Africans, and African internet policy wonks are joining the call for cross-border data access reform. Tefo Mohapi, the moderator of the opening panel, asked company representatives about building mirror datasets in African countries to allow African countries greater access to data held by U.S. companies, a form of data localization. “It all goes back to internet sovereignty,” Mohapi argued. “You operate with legal impunity without regard for state sovereignty.”
Participants continued to criticize the United States, adding that, “America has ceased to be the shining jewel of internet freedom” post-Snowden. African countries are often portrayed as untrustworthy and undeserving of data, even by the company representatives at this conference. Post-Snowden, African countries “want the discourse to expand beyond bad African governments, with the kind United States coming to save us.” African governments should have the same access as the now-untrustworthy United States, participants argued.
The company representatives responded to these criticisms by highlighting ongoing cross-border data access reform efforts. They emphasized that existing cross-border data access procedures are burdensome, and that they are in conversation with governments to change the process. They eagerly pointed out that ultimate responsibility for fixing this problem rests with governments, not companies.
Only two African countries, South Africa and Egypt, currently have MLATs with the United States. The proposed U.S. legislation could allow countries without MLATs to gain legal access to data (see Section 4), in theory addressing African concerns. In practice, however, it could be difficult for some African countries to meet the legislation’s legal standards. The United States must determine that a country has an independent judiciary, adequate substantial and procedural cyber laws, and adequate international human rights practices. The lack of adequate cyber laws alone would be enough to thwart most African data access agreements with the United States. More generally, the United States will likely not consider countries without MLATs a priority for new data access agreements. African countries’ general lack of political pull could considerably slow or reduce new African data access agreements.
Left Out of MLAT Reform: Potential Consequences
Cross-border data access reform is generally portrayed as the solution to the data localization laws, prosecutions of tech companies, and extraterritorial application of laws that countries have pursued when frustrated with MLATs. Most countries who have been turning to these methods, however, at least have MLATs, while African countries do not. African countries will likely be last in line for new data access agreements. Being shut out of both data access options means African countries will be twice marginalized.
African countries lacking an MLAT and a data access agreement with the United States will have few options for pursuing data. Countries can submit emergency requests to companies or ask for a joint investigation with the United States. African countries are already sensitive to concerns that they lack autonomy, and autonomy-constrained states are often most motivated to protect their autonomy. African countries might respond to their double marginalization by enacting data mirroring requirements, as the moderator at the forum suggested. Another forum participant suggested that African governments might increase internet shutdowns if they lack post-hoc data access, as a way of preemptive control. Ironically, U.S. efforts to allow countries greater access to data in the United States may result in African citizens having less access to the internet.
Cross-border data access should not be extended without qualification. Still, current reform plans seem likely to place African countries in a difficult position on a policy area that is increasingly important to them. If the United States really seeks to limit the proliferation of damaging data-access workarounds, it should think about what will happen to those who are left out of cross-border data access reform.
Mailyn Fidler is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. You can follow her @mailynfidler. This article was first published at Council on Foreign Relations on October 26, 2016.

Uganda District Officials Trained on Access to Information Tool

By Moses Odokonyero |

Local government officials from the northern Uganda districts of Gulu, Amuru and Nwoya were recently trained in the use of the online freedom of information portal Ask Your Government (AYG).  The officials have said the platform, which is accessed at www.askyourgov.ug, will be useful in improving the flow and exchange of information between their districts and the public. The training organised by the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) in partnership with Northern Uganda Media Club (NUMEC) and was held August 31 in Gulu, Uganda. Participants at the training included Information Officers, Community Development Officers, Natural Resources Officers and an Assistant Chief Administrative Officer from the administrations of the three districts in the Acholi sub region.
The training aimed to promote the release of public information held by the state through the use of online tools but with a specific focus on the AYG portal. The portal was launched in 2014 by the Uganda Office of the Prime Minister in partnership with the Africa Freedom Information Centre (AFIC) and CIPESA and is aimed at supporting the Access to Information Act (2005) by enabling citizens to request and receive public information from government authorities.
“I was unaware of the website before the training. But I now know how to use it. I think it will be useful in the sharing of information between us in the local governments and the public,” said Anthony Onen, the Amuru District Population Officer. He added, “But we need more of our colleagues in other departments also trained on how to use the website … because these departments hold information that is important for the public.’’
Meanwhile, Santa Odwa, an Assistant Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) with the Gulu district local government, remarked: “The training on how to use this website will help improve sharing of information with the public but the public must also be sensitised on how to use it and what kind of information can be asked for and not asked for from us.”
The district officials were also taken through different laws in Uganda that govern citizens right to access information, particularly the Access to Information Act, 2005. The Act aims, among others, to promote transparency and accountability in organs of the state by providing the public with information, and to empower the public to scrutinise and participate in government decisions that affect them.
In the context of northern Uganda, transparency and accountability by public authorities and the involvement of the public in the scrutiny of the public organs is particularly important. In the last decade, the region has seen several post-conflict recovery projects funded by both the government of Uganda and donors aimed at rehabilitating the region following years of conflict.  Most of these projects have been implemented under the framework of the Peace, Recovery, and Development Programme (PRDP).
Due to a lack of public scrutiny and limited information available to the public about projects under the PRDP, substandard work and corruption impeded delivery of public services under PRDP. In 2012, the Auditor General uncovered the swindling of over 50 billion shillings (US$14.7 million) by officials, which may have been exacerbated by a lack of transparency in the operations of the programme.
In September, 2016, the government launched a UGX 233 billion (US$68.5 million) —Project Restoration of Livelihoods in Northern Uganda (PRELNOR). The seven-year project aims to improve livelihoods and construct community roads to link local communities in nine districts in the Acholi region to markets. This type of project underscores the continued need for the public to have access to information to empower them so they are in position to hold public organs and officials accountable.
According to the communications regulator, as of March 2016, there were approximately 21 million mobile phone subscriptions while 38.9% of Ugandans had access to the internet. These figures pose a great opportunity for citizens to find innovative ways to shape democratic governance, including to monitor government transparency. The AYG portal and other online platforms are increasingly gaining influence and becoming important channels to disseminate information, promote accountability and cause public debate around public service delivery issues in Uganda.
The training is part of activities by CIPESA, NUMEC and local partner radio stations to promote the right to information as a catalyst for service delivery monitoring in northern Uganda and in supported by the Indigo Trust.
 

Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 – My Testimony

By Blaise Ndola |
Through presentations and interventions at the Forum on Internet Freedom in Africa 2016 (FIFAfrica16),I learned about different ways Africans countries are stifling citizens digital rights. But the most important at this level is that through these presentations and experiences shared, I realized that the battle for Internet freedoms is as important as ever because internet shutdowns, abuses of courts of law, blockages of websites and content removals continue to find their place on the continent.
Coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), I became aware of the work I have to do as an Internet freedom fighter and web activist once back home. Apart from that, I also realized the high level of danger faced by internet users when their privacy or personal data are not protected by themselves and by intermediaries (Telecoms). We need to fight at all the levels, first against practices of telecoms who are ready to respond governments’ requests to release information of their customers and then, to call upon policy makers to enact laws that will reinforce rights of citizens to privacy and freedom of expression.
Access to the internet and internet freedom should now become fundamental rights in African societies. At the same time, we should also fight the normalization of online violence against women and for gender equity in access to digital tools.
As suggestions to African governments, they should make efforts to put in place conducive legal frame works for the ICT sector. For instance, make laws that will not be restrictive of some rights as it’s the case nowadays. And also, they shouldincreasingly respect the rights of citizens to access  information, to freedom of expression and toprivacy.To intermediaries (telecoms), I suggest they remain neutral and aim to protect the privacy anddata of users of their services despite pressure from government.
To us, as part of civil society, I will suggest to continue advocating for internet freedoms in law and in practice and to require other stakeholders to respect certain fundamentals rights. Civil society, through campaigns and advocacy must raise awareness among internet users of the need for responsibility in their actions and usage of internet.
Finally, having attended two forums (2015 and 2016), I am proud to have networked and got connected to influencers and internet freedom activists in Africa and beyond. Thanks to the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and to all the partners for facilitating my attendance.
To follow the online discussion: #FIFAfrica16 @Cipesaug
This article was first published at blaisendola on October 11, 2016.