1. Using the right to access information in Mexico. A civil society perspective World Bank Institute September 11, 2008 Tania Sánchez Andrade

2. 1. Groups using the RTI Law  Human and civil rights, environmental, feminist and budget-analysis organizations (watchdog)  Groups that demand accountability, monitor public budgets and programs and seek to participate in public policies cycle  RTI as a tool to enhance the exercise of other rights

3. 2. Type of public information (through RTI) and its uses  Budget proposals, budget allocations and reallocations, reports of spent budget, invoices of women's health and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs Public funds handed to an anti-abortion group Reallocation of prevention and treatment of AIDS budget was traced  Detailed budgetary information and beneficiary enrollment data of anti poverty programs (Oportunidades) Correlation between program and budget implementation and election cycle  Budgetary information, regulations, memos on allocation decisions in PEMEX social development fund Highy discretionary allocation decisions

4. 3. The Mexican Information Access Regime a. Constitutional Right to Information (reformed July 2007) b. Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information (June 2003) c. 32 State Laws (2002 – 2006)

5. 4. The Federal Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information a. Universal right b. Limited exceptions to access c. Anonymity (no justification of any kind) d. Simple procedure to file information requests (limited time, free or low cost) e. Electronic system to file requests f. Information official in each government agency g. Right to appeal through a simple procedure h. Independent specialized federal agency (IFAI) i. Active transparency (information proactively published and updated frequently)

6. 5. Difficulties/ challenges when using RTI Law  Requires plenty technical knowledge about government and programs, sometimes exact name of documents (exclusion)  Deal with long time frames  Lack of genuine transparency in some public servants / agencies Denial of information that seems clearly public and having to appeal Claims that information requested is not in agency's scope

7. 6. Frustrations when using RTI Law  Quality of information Not comparable (across time and programs) Not complete, consistent, timely  IFAI's resolution (revoking denials) does not automatically translate into access to information  Limited reach beyond federal level  Claims of “non-existent” information A lawfully way to get away with denials or Information genuinely not being produced? No reliable mechanism to verify non-existence

8. 7. On a positive note….  Systemic impact  Public policy improvement  Correction of flaws in program implementation  Increased accountability  Corruption prevention  Democratic governance is possible!

9. Thank you. Tania Sánchez Andrade