2014年-世界发展银行全球_Requests_and_Appeals_Data_in_Right_to_Information_Systems___Brazil_India_Jordan_Mexico_South_Africa_Thailand_United_Kingdom_and_United_States_29页_1mb

Summary of Requests and Appeals Data in Right to Information Systems

Core Content

This working paper analyzes the data on requests and appeals under Right to Information (RTI) laws in eight countries: Brazil, India, Jordan, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study aims to assess how these countries collect and publish data on RTI usage, and to identify trends in implementation effectiveness.

Main Findings

1. Data Collection and Reporting

• The paper focuses on national-level data, excluding subnational statistics.
• Data were gathered from annual reports and online portals, where applicable.
• The central reporting bodies vary across countries and include oversight agencies, information commissions, and ombudspersons.
• Brazil, India, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States have the most comprehensive data collection practices, while Jordan and Thailand report limited or incomplete data.

2. Request Volume and Response Rates

• The number of requests and response types (full grant, partial grant, refusal, etc.) is a key indicator of RTI system performance.
• Brazil reported 86,661 requests in 2013, with a per capita rate of 0.04%.
• India had the highest number of requests (655,572 in 2011-2012) and the largest backlog (430,425 requests at the start of 2011).
• Mexico reported 142,766 requests in 2013, with a per capita rate of 0.12%, the second-highest among the countries.
• The United States reported 776,184 potential requests in 2013, but only 678,391 were processed, leaving a backlog of 95,564 and 12% of requests outstanding.
• South Africa had a fluctuating number of reports, with 23,380 requests in 2012-2013, and a per capita rate of 0.05%.
• Jordan had the lowest number of requests (2,286 in 2013) and a per capita rate of 0.04%, with data only covering 15 agencies.

3. Response Types

• The majority of requests in Brazil, India, Mexico, and the United States were granted in full or in part.
• Refusals based on exemptions were reported in Brazil (6.4%), India (8.12%), and the United States (6.1%).
• Non-exemption refusals were significant in India (28.9%) and the United States (28.9%), indicating potential issues with the legal framework or implementation.
• Only India and Brazil provided data on the resolution of appeals, while the UK and US reported on the number of appeals but not the reasons or outcomes.

4. Exemptions and Appeals

• Exemption data is available in Brazil, India, Mexico, and the United States.
• The use of exemptions is a common reason for refusal, but the specific exemptions invoked are not always detailed.
• Appeals data is available in all countries, but the reasons for appeals and how they were resolved are rarely published.
• Only India reported the actual application of sanctions for non-compliance with RTI laws.

5. Sanctions

• Legal provisions for sanctions exist in all eight countries.
• However, only India implemented sanctions during the reporting period, suggesting a gap between legal frameworks and practical enforcement.

Key Information

• Legal Framework and Implementation:

  • RTI laws in these countries have been in effect for varying lengths of time, ranging from 1966 (US) to 2011 (Brazil).
  • The length of time a law has been in force does not necessarily correlate with the detail of reporting.

• Data Availability:

  • Data on the type of information requested and the agencies receiving requests are generally available.
  • However, detailed information on the reasons for refusals and the resolution of appeals is often missing.
  • Thailand and Jordan have the weakest data collection and reporting practices.

• Oversight Bodies:

  • Oversight functions are typically managed by a central body, but in the UK and US, data collection is handled by a separate nodal agency.
  • The UK's Ministry of Justice is the central reporting body, while the US Office of Information Policy (OIP) is responsible for central reporting.
  • Brazil's Office of Comptroller General and India's Central Information Commission are among the most active in collecting and publishing data.

• Challenges in Data Collection:

  • The lack of standardization in how data is categorized and reported across countries hinders cross-country analysis.
  • Some countries do not provide data on the reasons for refusals, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of their RTI systems.

Conclusion

• The study highlights that while RTI systems are growing in popularity, their effectiveness in data collection and reporting varies significantly.
• The availability of detailed data on appeals and refusals is limited, which hampers the ability to assess the performance of RTI systems accurately.
• Stronger legal frameworks and more transparent oversight mechanisms are needed to ensure that data is not only collected but also made publicly accessible and meaningful for accountability and improvement.