Presentation on 'How Open data could contribute to poverty eradication in Kenya and Uganda through its impact on resource allocation'

1. How open data could
contribute to poverty
eradication in Kenya and
Uganda through its impacts
on resource allocation:
Research Findings
BERNARD SABITI – bsabiti@drt-ug.org
Presentation to the Dissemination workshop, Hotel Africana,
Kampala, Uganda June 5, 2014

2. Objectives
Overall objective: Use case studies from
Uganda and Kenya to trace the evolution of
the open data movement in the two
countries and to assess the role that this
movement plays in accountability and the
equitable allocation of financial resources
for the eradication poverty

3. Research questions:
1. How are open data initiatives in Uganda
and Kenya contributing to poverty
reduction through impacts on resource
allocation?
2. How could the contribution of open data
initiatives to poverty reduction resources
allocations be strengthened in the future?

4. Definition of terms
1. “Open Data”: Data which is made
accessible (usually online), in a
standardized machine-readable format,
and under a license that allows it to be re-
used
2. Open Data Initiative: any organized
activity focused on providing open data
(Supply side), or on securing access to
open data (demand side)
source: www.opendefinition.org

5. Definition of terms
3. Open Government: A campaign that started in
2009 with the presidency of Barack Obama.
Advocated for ‘putting government online’.
Open Government Partnership founded in 2009 and
launched in 2011, initially with a membership of
eight countries but which has since grown to 63 (In
East Africa, Kenya and Tanzania are members but
Uganda has not yet signed up)
http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

6. Definition of terms
Resource Allocation: The decisions of policy
makers and duty bearers to distribute
money, manpower, public goods and
other efforts to sectors, regions, or
otherwise, for development purposes
Poverty Eradication: The desire and efforts of
most national and international
development actors to end poverty (by
2035)

7. Our Key Assumptions
Data
• Data
on:Social ecc
indicators,
resource
flows, use
and misuse
• available
• accessible
• useable to
• CSOs,
media,
MDAs,
Decision
makers
• MDAs
• Politicians
• Donors
make more
informed
decisions
on resource
allocation
and use
Resource
Allocation
• more
resources
allocated
to
education,
health,
Agriculture,
and other
poverty
reducing
sectors
Poverty
Eradication
• Better
Development
outcomes
• Better use of
resources
• more
accountability
• more
transparency

8. Methodology
5 stage process (March 2013 –April 2014)
Inception
phase
Literature
review
Consultation
Analysis
phase
reporting
and
feedback
phase.

9. Methodology
Data collection
Semi-structured Interviews with KIIs from CSOs, MDAs,
Donors, academia and private sector.
MDAs
35%
Academia
15%
CSOs
31%
Private
sector
8%
Donors
11%

10. Methodology cont’d: some respondents
Kenya Uganda
Ministry of Information and
Communication ICT Board
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
iHub Research Ministry of Finance
Budget Monitoring and Accountability Unit (BMAU)
University of Nairobi Ministry of Education (Directorate of information)
The National Treasury (E-ProMIS National Information Technology Authority (NITA)
Strathmore University, iLab Africa Collaboration on International ICT Policy in Eastern
and Southern Africa
(CIPESA)
TradeMark East Africa Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda (ACCU)
African Media Initiative (AMI) Knowledge Management and Communication Capacity
Initiative (KMCC)
Ministry of Devolution & Planning Northern Uganda Media Club
(NUMEC)
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics Rwenzori Information Centres Network (RIC-NET)
World Bank Country Office UNICEF (Devtrac)
Kenya ICT Authority GIZ (Ministry of energy data project)
Economic Policy and Research Centre
(EPRC)

11. Methodology cont’d
Case studies
•Kenya Open Data initiative
•E-promis (electronic Project Monitoring
Information System in Kenya’s MoF)
•Uganda’s budget.go.ug
•BOOST
•Kasese E-society resource centre (RIC-NET)
•Devtrac

12. Analytical and conceptual framework
In order to assess the role of open data in resource allocation for poverty
eradication in Kenya and Uganda, we adopted a holistic “ecosystem”
analytical framework

13. Findings
What is the current
status of Open Data
in the two countries?

14. What is Open Data in the two countries?
Different from the Open Definition. Data dissemination still very
traditional (more so for Uganda than Kenya)

15. KODI: www.opendata.go.ke

16. Majidata.go.ke

17. budget.go.ug

18. Ureport

19. Uganda Open Development Platform –
www.opendevdata.ug

20. Dimension Drivers
Legislative/statutory environment The ICT policies (in both countries)
Institutions like Kenya ICT board, Uganda
National IT Authority, ministries of ICT provide
conducive policy environments.
Freedom of information act (bill for Kenya’s case)
Economic The availability of funds through a
development partner (WB) played a role in
the early success of KODI.
Donors demand data for their planning activities,
and are increasingly pushing for general open
data policies.
technological Increasing internet penetration and other ICT
modern infrastructures like smart phones, and
general access to these technologies
SocioPolitical Political will exists in some quarters of the
governments
A government champion in Kenya’s
Communications ministry was key to KODI
Drivers and Barriers of Open Data Processes in Uganda and Kenya

21. Barriers
Dimension Barriers
Policy/Legislative •Antiterrorism laws e.g Kenya media bill (2013) – vetoed by
president
•Communications Regulatory Authority Bill, 2012
•The Regulation of Interception of Communications (RIC), 2010
•The Anti-Terrorism Act No.14 of 2002
•Press and Journalist Act
•Public Order Management Act (2013
•The computer misuse act of 2010
Economic The absence of funding has played a role in Uganda’s
initiative by making it difficult to launch. So whereas
there is some political will in both countries, funding was
the main difference in the existence of the initiatives.
Donor demand focuses on their core interests like aid and
statistical information; yet open data should cover broader scope
ICT Digital divide: Internet coverage is poor in rural areas where
majority of the people live.
SocioPolitical Some politicians are suspicious if skeptical of open data
movements and offer only tepid support. The most enthusiastic
about it are not very powerful and influential in decision
making.
Custodians of data consider it to be their power tool and so
hold onto it. (Data hugging,)
Apathy from the public and officials

22. F
g
Findings II
Key messages

23. g
Findings cont’d
•Although there was no clear link between open data and
resource allocation, largely because of political economy factors,
the potential for this link is apparent because of strong drivers of
open data processes in both countries.
•While the progress so far realised on openness in Kenya is
driven by ICT growth, in Uganda it is driven more by low-tech,
traditional transparency initiatives.
•A digital divide between rural and urban; male and female
regarding access to open data drivers is evident in both
countries.
•In both countries, the legal and policy frameworks are robust.
However, the very governments that have created these robust
frameworks have also found ways around the legislative
framework to ‘undermine’ openness and transparency.

24. g
Findings
•In Kenya greater focus needs to be on strengthening the
political and legal aspects of open data while facilitating multi-
stakeholder engagement In Uganda on the other hand, financial
investment in the open data process, building multi-stakeholder
engagement, strengthening the legal and political environment
and capacity building emerged as some of the key areas of focus.
• There is still a preference within governments for the
traditional way of data collection, management and
dissemination in form of voluminous books and highly technical
terminology.
•There is need for open development championing institutions
(individuals, civil society, private sector, media, academia)
•There are multiple actors within the data ecosystem, who
however, work in silos not complementing each other’s efforts.
Linkages must be therefore created to ensure efficacy.

25. g
Recommendations
For Governments
•Promote sector and cross sector specific initiatives that enable
collaboration and transparency through different e-
transformation strategies across government sectors and
agencies
• Formulate and IMPLEMENT policies, regulations and laws to
support the use of ICT to transform service delivery
•Provide an environment that allows an open government and
civil society to participate in content and service creation in both
countries.

26. g
Recommendations
For CSOs
•Create awareness and a culture of open data in
Kenya and Uganda by explaining what it is, who
it serves and why the country needs an open
development approach in national development
•work in partnership to strengthen their voice in
advocacy for transparency and accountability
through availability and access to public data

27. g
Recommendations cont’d
For Private sector and the ‘techies’
•To work with government, CSOs and other actors to
increase investments in technologies and services that
promotes access to data and information.
•Contribute to the bridging of the rural-urban digital
divide that exists by ensuring penetration into rural
areas, cost effectiveness and affordability of
information technologies

28. g
Recommendations cont’d
For Media
•Adopt and embrace the growing culture of data
journalism
•Provide free or affordable space for
dissemination of critical data aimed for the
public good. E.g Data on the state or
investments in water, education, agriculture and
other poverty related sectors

29. g
Recommendations cont’d
For Data Producers
Always endeavour to avail data in easy to use,
machine readable formats, in addition to the
existing traditional formats (such as big books,
newspaper pullouts, notice boards and PDFs)

30. g
Recommendations cont’d
For Citizens:
Demand for update, regular, simplified and
digestible data from government on
resource allocation and other development
matters.