The Chapter examines opportunities and challenges in the implementation of the open government principle of transparency in Jordan. It analyses the country’s legal and policy frameworks for access to information, including the mechanisms and tools for proactive and reactive disclosure. It provides an assessment of the institutional framework for access to information. Throughout, the chapter provides recommendations and reflects on good practices from OECD member and key partner countries to help the government of Jordan reinforce a culture of transparency.
OECD Public Governance Reviews: Jordan
Together for an Accountable and Transparent Public Administration
Abstract
Transparency, underpinned by the right to access information (ATI), plays a crucial role in creating an efficient and effective public governance system that responds to the needs and demands of its citizens. By providing individuals with the means to access relevant information, ATI empowers people, promotes informed participation in policy and decision-making and is a precondition for holding public institutions accountable. In this sense, the right to ATI – an individual's ability to seek, receive, impart and use information (UNESCO, 2023[1]) – is a key contributor to the success of any national reform agenda in good governance. Recognising its relevance, Jordan has recently approved an amended version of its Access to Information Law, the Law amending the Law Guaranteeing the Right to Access Information 3/2024, in force since the 24 April 2024 (hereinafter the “amended ATI Law” or “2024 ATI Law”). In addition, Jordan has enshrined transparency as both a foundational principle and an objective of its Public Sector Modernization Roadmap 2022-25 (hereinafter “the Roadmap”) (Government of Jordan, 2022[2]). Under its rational, the Roadmap highlights that “There is a significant increase in demands for accountability and transparency in information and procedures (…), which impose on the government the need to be upfront and transparent with the citizens and adopt clear principles for reward and punishment” (Government of Jordan, 2022[2]). It also positions transparency and accountability as success pillars and foundations, defining them as “ongoing communication with citizens and partners, enhancing principles of transparency, openness and the culture of performance, clarity in procedures and availability of information around them, and applying the concepts of good governance, integrity and accountability in decision-making and service provision” (Government of Jordan, 2022[2])..
The amended ATI Law and the high-level political commitment to the Roadmap, which aspires for Jordan to build “a flexible and efficient government structure designed around citizen priorities, compliant with the principles of good governance and enhance transparency and accountability” (Government of Jordan, 2022[2]) could provide the necessary impetus to encourage a paradigm shift throughout the administration in favour of a culture of transparency. Jordan’s pledge towards transparency is similarly included in its commitment to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 16.10 to “Ensure public ATI and protect fundamental freedoms”, under which there is further room for progress according to the country’s latest SDG voluntary national review (MoPIC, 2022[3]).
In addition to supporting the achievement of Jordan’s goals for public governance, there is evidence to suggest that strong ATI systems can help create economic efficiencies, increase foreign direct investment (FDI) and foster economic growth (Box 2.1), which would in turn support another high-level policy document, the Jordanian Economic Modernization Vision (Government of Jordan, 2022[4]). For instance, businesses are a significant stakeholder group that can benefit from the vast amount of information collected by public authorities, much of which is relevant to economic matters and social trends, to make better decisions. The economic value of the information released under right to information requests has been assessed at billions of USD (UNESCO Jordan, 2017[5]).
Evidence suggests that information transparency and accountability foster economic growth and investment. Some reasons identified include:
Reduces information asymmetries between economic actors. For multinational firms, information transparency confers two advantages. First, “it decreases the uncertainty of the information they hold about a country’s value as a location for investment” (Berliner, 2012[6]). Access to this knowledge enables multinational firms to best evaluate if investment in a country would be profitable for them or not. Additionally, ATI laws benefit foreign firms by allowing them to access information about the operating environment that domestic firms already enjoy (Malesky, McCulloch and Nhat, 2015[7]).
Enhances predictability. Where “laws and regulations are implemented in a manner which would allow firms to forecast and build new developments into their business plans” (Hollyer, Rosendorff and Vreeland, 2011[8]), predictability “also increases the likelihood that they will have advance warning in the case of any future attempt to expropriate or increase regulatory or tax burdens” (Berliner, 2012[6]).
Strengthens credibility. Transparency in general, and specifically ATI laws, can increase policy credibility by placing monitoring and sanctioning ability in the hands of a greater number of domestic actors, making future policy reversals less likely (Berliner, 2012[6]).
These elements translate into beneficial results for the economy. Foreign investors place high importance on government transparency when deciding to invest for the first time or intensify their activities abroad (WTO, 2002[9]).
All else equal, non-transparent policies are linked to lower levels of FDI (Payne and Drabek, 2022[10]). Similarly, low transparency has been shown to significantly hinder the inflow of FDI to host countries (Zhao, Kim and Du, 2003[11]). High levels of transparency are very closely correlated with FDI inflows (Caetano and Caleiro, 2009[12]).
Fiscal transparency and its capacity to constrain government behaviour are closely linked to increased FDI inflows and economic growth. More specifically, a higher degree of transparency during the phase of budget execution is associated with increases in FDI inflows (Cicatiello et al., 2021[13]; Cimpoeru and Cimpoeru, 2015[14]).
Transparency increases economic growth once a certain threshold of transparency has been reached and continues to increase growth, making the country more transparent (Law et al., 2022[15]).
Average income levels tend to increase in correlation with higher levels of public sector transparency (Forssbaeck, 2021[16]).
Sources: Berliner, D. (2012[6]) , “Institutionalizing transparency: The global spread of freedom of information in law and practice”, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/21770; Malesky, E., N. McCulloch and N. Nhat (2015[7]), “The impact of governance and transparency on firm investment in Vietnam”, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12068; Hollyer, J., B. Rosendorff and J. Vreeland (2011[8]), “Democracy and transparency”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 73/4, pp. 1191-1205; WTO (2002[9]), “The impact of transparency on foreign direct investment”, https://www.e-jei.org/upload/148HEKXL3092R4YH.pdf; Payne, Z. and W. Drabek (2022[10]), “The impact of transparency on foreign direct investment”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23000835; Zhao, J., S. Kim and J. Du (2003[11]), “The impact of corruption and transparency on foreign direct investment: An empirical analysis”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835633; Caetano, J. and A. Caleiro (2009[12]), “Is there a relationship between transparency in economic and political systems and foreign direct investment flows?”, IUP Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. VIII/2, pp. 45-58; Cicatiello, L. et al. (2021[13]), “Assessing the impact of fiscal transparency on FDI inflows”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100892; Cimpoeru, M. and V. Cimpoeru (2015[14]), “Budgetary transparency – An improving factor for corruption control and economic performance”, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01036-9; Forssbaeck, J. (2021[16]), “Transparency and economic development”, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429326936; Law, S. et al. (2022[15]), “Non-linearity and the threshold effect of transparency on economic growth: Evidence from developing countries”, http://10.1080/17487870.2022.21.
Jordan was the first country to adopt an ATI law in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region –Law no. 47 of 2007 Guaranteeing the Right to Access Information (hereinafter the “former ATI Law” or “2007 ATI Law”) (Official Gazette, 2007[17]) – and made strides towards the law’s implementation, especially through Commitment no. 5 of the Fourth Open Government Partnership (OGP) National Action Plan (NAP) 2018‑21 (OGP, 2018[18]) on institutionalisation of the enforcement measures of the ATI law. However, the OGP Transitional Results Report Jordan 2018-2021 (2022[19]) underscores important gaps in the right to ATI in Jordan and the need to continue working to achieve a stronger ATI system. Similarly, according to the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index open government indicator, Jordan ranks 109 out of 142 countries in 2023 on the extent to which the government shares information and empowers people with tools to hold the government accountable as well as on the quality of information published by the government (WJP, 2023[20]). Figure 2.1 shows that Jordan performs better than several other economies in the MENA region but there continues to be room for improvement with respect to its neighbours.
Note: The open government factor of the WJP Rule of Law Index assigns a score from 0 to 1 with “0” being weaker and “1” being stronger. The WJP Open Government Index includes four dimensions: i) publicised laws and government data; ii) right to information; iii) civic participation; and iv) complaint mechanisms. More information on the methodology is available here: https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-open-government-index/dimensions-wjp-open-government-index.
Source: WJP (2023[20]), WJP Rule of Law Index - Open Government Dimension, https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/factors/2022/Open%20Government/.
The challenges mentioned above were exacerbated by the approval of Law no. 17 of 2023 on Cybercrime (Official Gazette, 2023[21]) on 12 August 2023, which raised concerns at the national and international levels due to its potential implications on civic freedoms, especially on freedoms of expression and information. In this context, King Abdullah II stressed during a meeting with the National Centre for Human Rights’ board of trustees and the Jordan Press Association that combating cybercrimes should not be at the expense of Jordanians’ right to express their opinion and criticise public policies, and he encouraged further discussions in parliament about a possible amendment of the ATI law (Press Release, King Abdullah, 2023[22]) to ensure everyone’s right of timely access to correct and accurate information. This discussion, which had started in 2019, regained momentum, leading to the approval of the amended law. In synergy with the national priorities mentioned above, Jordan has a unique opportunity to embrace the positive additions of this amended ATI Law and align its implementation with international good practices. This will support Jordan in its aims to foster economic growth, combat corruption, counter disinformation, remain accountable and, ultimately, strengthen citizens’ trust in public administration. This chapter aims to support Jordan in its journey to implement its amended ATI Law, consider future improvements and develop enhanced mechanisms for proactive and reactive disclosure through comparative analysis and recommendations based on good practices from OECD members and partner and European Union countries.
Jordan has ratified international treaties that protect the right to access information
In Jordan, the ratification of international treaties is sufficient to incorporate them into Jordanian domestic law and to be invoked before national courts. This makes international instruments Jordan has ratified a fundamental part of its legal framework. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court, through Decision no. 1/2020 regarding the interpretation of Article 33 of the constitution, confirmed that it would not be permissible to issue laws that contradict the obligations acquired by Jordan through international treaties.
Jordan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1975, under which Article 19 establishes that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (emphasis added) and also foresees that “the exercise of the rights (…) carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals” (UN, 1966[23]). Hence, the right to access information can be considered a fundamental right under Jordan’s legal framework.
Recognising the need to bridge the gap between the content of the ICCPR and the 2007 ATI Law, Jordan’s Comprehensive National Plan for Human Rights (2016-25) (Government of Jordan, 2016[24]) foresaw aligning the national legislations and policies related to the right to the freedom of opinion and expression with the constitution and international conventions, to the extent endorsed by Jordan. As a key activity it included “amend and further activate” the 2007 ATI Law, as done through the amendment approved in March 2024.
In the context of the fight against corruption, Jordan ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption in 2005, in which Article 10 establishes that countries will “take such measures as may be necessary to enhance transparency in its public administration, including with regard to its organisation, functioning and decision-making processes, where appropriate” and in Article 13 establishes a commitment to “(a) Enhancing the transparency of and promoting the contribution of the public to decision-making processes; (b) Ensuring that the public has effective access to information” (UN, 2005[25]).
Enshrining the right to access information at the highest level
The Jordanian constitution, adopted in 1952 and amended in 2011, is the pinnacle of the Jordanian legal system. Chapter 2 of the constitution describes the fundamental rights of its citizens, including freedoms of opinion and expression. Different international declarations and legal authors have deemed that the right to access information can be subsumed in these two rights (UN, 1948[26]; UNESCO, 2009[27]) since it is a precondition for their exercise. However, the constitution does not acknowledge the fundamental right to access information explicitly, unlike 70% of respondent OECD members and economies from the MENA region to the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government such as Egypt (OECD, n.d.[28]), Morocco and Tunisia (OECD, 2022[29]). Box 2.2 highlights some examples of countries that have included this right in their constitutions. Enshrining the right to access information at the highest level would have the potential to ensure its longevity throughout changing political cycles and would provide a stronger legitimacy to developing other legal and institutional frameworks on ATI at all levels and branches of government. It would also be in line with the government’s plan to further align Jordan’s legal framework with the international human rights covenants it has ratified. As such, Jordan could consider recognising the right to ATI at the highest level.
Morocco
Article 27: “The citizens [feminine] and citizens [masculine] have the right to access information held by the public administration, the elected institutions and the organs invested with missions of public service. The right to information may only be limited by the law, with the objective of assuring the protection of all which concerns national defence, the internal and external security of the State, and the private life of persons, of preventing infringement to the fundamental freedoms and rights enounced in this Constitution and of protecting the sources and the domains determined with specificity by the law”.
Tunisia
Article 32: “The state guarantees the right to information and the right of access to information and communication networks”.
Belgium
Article 32: “Everyone has the right to consult any administrative document and to obtain a copy, except in the cases and conditions stipulated by the laws, federate laws or rules referred to in Article 134”.
Colombia
Article 20: “Every individual is guaranteed the freedom to express and diffuse his/her thoughts and opinions, to transmit and receive information that is true and impartial, and to establish mass communications media”.
Article 74: “Every person has a right to access to public documents except in cases established by law”
Sources: Government of Belgium (2021[30]), The Belgian Constitution (English translation), https://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/GrondwetUK.pdf; Government of Colombia (n.d.[31]), Political Constitution 1 of 1991, https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=4125; Government of Morocco (2011[32]), The Constitution, http://www.sgg.gov.ma/Portals/0/constitution/constitution_2011_Fr.pdf; Government of Egypt (n.d.[33]), 2014 Constitution, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2014; Government of Tunisia (n.d.[34]), The Constitution, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014.
Jordan has taken an important step to strengthen its legal framework by amending its ATI law
Jordan was a pioneer in the MENA region by adopting its 2007 ATI Law and paving the way for other MENA economies that have since approved their ATI laws. In this sense, Jordan joins the large majority of countries worldwide: 134 countries currently have an ATI law, according to Global Right to Information Rating (Center for Law and Democracy, 2023[35]) (Figure 2.2).
However, it is crucial for countries to continually monitor and evaluate their ATI laws to address any bottlenecks and gaps that arise in practice and guarantee that they reflect changes in how modern public administrations work. Jordan, like Morocco and Tunisia in the MENA region and 30% of OECD member countries, has amended its ATI laws since they were first adopted.
Source: Centre for Law and Democracy (n.d.[36]), By Country - Global RTI Rating, https://www.rti-rating.org/country-data/.
It is important to note that to fully reap the benefits of ATI law and increase buy-in and appropriation by the public administration and citizens, any amendment to the law should be developed through a participatory approach. Interviews during the fact-finding mission highlighted that selected entities and civil society organisations (CSOs) were engaged in formulating the amended ATI Law,1 including extensive consultation with the National Center for Human Rights. However, the draft was not open to a broad citizen and stakeholder consultation through the Legislation and Opinion Bureau platform. Jordan could consider involving stakeholders in implementing the amended ATI Law and developing bylaws to infuse them with helpful inputs and foster stakeholder ownership and buy-in.
Through its OGP Fourth NAP 2018-20, Jordan adopted Commitment no. 5, “Institutionalization of the enforcement measures for Access to Information Law” (OGP, 2018[18]) to complement the content of the former ATI Law and advance its implementation. The leading implementing agencies were the Department of the National Library in the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (now the Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, MoDEE) and the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (JIACC) for the fourth milestone of the commitment. A committee was formed in 2019 to follow up on the commitment, comprised of representatives from the Open Government Unit at the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MoPIC), the Department of the National Library, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (now MoDEE), JIACC, the National Center for Human Rights, the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, the Jordan Transparency Center and academics from the Al-Hussein Bin Talal University and the Princess Sumaya University for Technology. The committee was entrusted with developing an executive plan and following it up to implement the commitment to institutionalise the procedures for the right to access information. The plan included several implementation stages, including forming committees of specialists to develop protocols jointly with experts, promoting approval of the protocols by the Council of Ministers, preparing and implementing awareness and training materials on the protocols, and contributing to designing a compliance matrix in co‑operation with JIACC.
These committees finished their work after the approval of the three protocols by the Council of Ministers. The results were three protocols finalised in 2020 and endorsed through Formal Letter No. 65/10/6/24254, dated 22 December 2020, from the prime minister to the minister of culture approving the three protocols and instructing all governmental ministries, bodies and institutions to comply with them. Therefore, the protocols are considered binding:
The Information Classification Protocol, which outlines a system to classify the information in possession of each public entity in advance to determine what information is available and what is not (i.e. which is confidential) by the provisions of the former ATI Law. This includes, for instance, criteria for identifying the information that should be proactively disclosed, reactively disclosed and confidential.
The Enforcement Procedures for Access to Information Protocol, which aims to establish a unified and institutionalised process for implementing the former ATI Law by best practices. It does so by defining the specific roles and duties of each entity when enforcing the law and outlining the requisites for internal operations to guarantee the right to ATI.
The Documents and Files Management and Indexing Protocol, which develops a system for information management with the aim to harmonise practices for indexing across public entities.
As mentioned throughout this chapter, the protocols reflect promising practices aligned with international standards. Based on OECD research and interviews, there remains a need to raise public officials’ awareness of the protocols and to achieve their implementation. The Department of the National Library has conducted significant efforts to train officials since the protocols were approved (see section “Capacity building and training of public officials”). However, in many cases, they are still not applied in practice, with officials focusing solely on the contents of the ATI Law.
In addition to the above committee, two technical committees were formed among relevant public institution and CSOs to develop amendments to the 2007 ATI Law in line with international good practices, resulting in the draft presented in parliament in 2019. While the 2019 amendments were not approved at the time and were debated in parliament in subsequent years, they formed the basis of the amendments approved in the 2024 ATI Law, with limited modifications.
Moving ahead, Jordan could consider maintaining some of these committees, whether created to fulfil its OGP commitments or for legislative efforts, to ensure their continued implementation and monitor their sustainability. This would enable the pursuit of open government goals as part of a more sustainable strategic vision for the country and would perpetuate the momentum of reforms.
Through the amended ATI Law, Jordan has enshrined some of the protocols’ provisions into legislation, such as obligations related to proactive disclosure. This is a step in the right direction, although some key provisions and procedures were not included. As part of implementing the amended ATI Law, it will be relevant to update the protocols to ensure their alignment with the amended ATI Law. In April 2024, a new committee was formed to develop bylaws and regulate the implementation of the amended ATI Law.
Aspects that are well-regulated in the protocols but not in the amended ATI Law include for example: in the Enforcement Procedures for Access to Information Protocol, the responsibilities at each level of management for the implementation of the ATI Law within a public entity (Article 4); the detailed procedures for dealing reactively with information requests, both in person and digital, including the need to seek user feedback (Article 5); the full nature of the annual report that each public entity should provide to the Information Council (Article 6); the development of ATI performance indicators in each entity (Article 8); and the development of ATI awareness, promotion and training initiatives to be carried out by each public entity (Article 9). In the Information Classification Protocol, internal ATI committees are created for the classification of information and the procedure to do so (Articles 5-8). Finally, the system outlined in the Documents and Files Management and Indexing Protocol could serve as a basis for the system of information management that should be regulated in the bylaws according to the amended ATI Law.
As the above-mentioned provisions of the protocols are still relevant and compatible with the amended ATI Law, Jordan could consider enshrining the content of the protocols into bylaws of the amended ATI Law, which would ground these good practices in a stronger legal framework and make their implementation more likely.
Scope of the amended ATI Law
The scope of Jordan’s amended ATI Law is considered to be broadly in line with international good practices. Article 2, related to definitions, states that “public entity” in the law refers to “any ministry, office, authority or committee or any public official or official public institution or company that manages public facilities, unions/syndicates, and parties, and any body that receives partial or complete funding form the state’s general budget or from any foreign party” (Official Gazette, 2024[37]). As the former law, the amended ATI Law applies across the executive, legislative and judiciary powers, as well as to the Royal Hashemite Court; it applies to both first administrative tier and smaller administrative authorities like towns and cities and also covers state-owned enterprises, independent institutions, hospitals, universities, trade unions, professional associations, municipalities and the Social Security Corporation. As a new addition, it covers political parties and anybody receiving total or partial government funding. Figure 2.3 reflects the scope of ATI laws across OECD member and partner countries (OECD, 2022[29]).
Percentage of countries that provided data in the OECD Survey on Open Government
Note: At the time of writing, Costa Rica did not have an ATI law but an executive decree applying to the executive branch; therefore, the country was not included in this question.
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, in OECD (2022[29]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
Promoting proactive disclosure of information: What, when and how information is published proactively
Proactive disclosure refers to the act of regularly releasing information without the need for a request by stakeholders. It reduces the administrative burden for public officials handling and answering individual ATI requests, which can often be lengthy and costly. Favouring proactive disclosure “encourages better information management, improves a public authority’s internal information flows, and thereby contributes to increased efficiency” (Darbishire, 2010[38]). Finally, it ensures timely access to public information for citizens as information is published as it becomes available and not upon request (OECD, 2016[39]). The information should be clear, complete, timely and reliable, in line with the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[40]).
In Jordan, the need to proactively disclose information has been enshrined in the amended law for the first time (Box 2.3). This brings it in line with most OECD countries, which provide a list of information proactively disclosed by central/federal governments as stated in the law or any other legal framework in respondent countries (Figure 2.4).
Article 8 of the amended ATI Law reads as follows:
“The public entity must periodically publish the following:
- Information related to the public entity’s organisational structure, the tasks assigned to it, its work mechanisms, and legislation related to it;
- Information related to the department’s budget, details of its items, distribution mechanism and auditing of the department’s accounts and expenditures, financial deficits and surpluses, and their causes;
- Information related to the general policy, programs, plans and projects of the public entity;
- A detailed list and general description of the services provided to the public and the conditions required to benefit from these services if certain conditions exist;
- Annual or periodic reports issued by the concerned public entity;
- Agreements relating to the operation of the public entity;
- The name of the Information Officer and the mechanism for communicating with him or her;
- Tenders offered by the public entity;
- Any other information that the Information Council needs to publish.”
The Information that has been published, disclosed, or delivered to the person requesting it by the concerned authorities can be used or reused, on a condition to mention the date of its acquisition and source, and that its content is not distorted in accordance with the provisions of the document indexing and classification system issued pursuant to the provisions of this law.
The Armed Forces, General Intelligence and Public Security departments are excluded from applying the provisions of this article.
Compared to the article on proactive disclosure contained in the Information Classification Protocol (2021), while both documents are generally in alignment, some additional provisions in the protocol include: “The information held by the department and its types” and “Information related to all sectors, whether raw data, aggregated or statistical information, such as economic, social and residential information”. Both categories are relevant and continue to be binding in the current framework; however, their overlap may create confusion among public officials and entities when responding to requests. This reinforces the need to create relevant bylaws that consolidate the content of the protocols and are fully aligned with the amended ATI Law.
Source: The new ATI Law (2024); the Information Classification Protocol (2021); the Information Classification Protocol (2021).
In light of the amended ATI Law, public entities in Jordan will need to pursue and scale up their efforts to proactively disclose information in the coming months. According to the information received by the Information Council in the annual reporting cycle of 2022, only 40 public institutions among the entities that responded to the prime minister’s circular by submitting information reports carry out proactive disclosure in practice, out of the 124 that received the circular (about one‑third). This points to the need to enhance proactive disclosure across all of the concerned entities, which may require technical support to upload information onto governmental websites, as well as to strengthen prior classification efforts.
Note: “All” refers to 45 respondents (27 OECD members and 18 non-members).
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, in OECD (2022[29]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
How to prioritise what information to disclose?
Two approaches are particularly helpful when deciding what information to disclose proactively. First, the information to be proactively disclosed should ideally be of particular interest to relevant stakeholders, such as citizens, civil society actors, the private sector and journalists. In this sense, Jordan could consider consulting stakeholders on which information is most useful for them and could enable its prioritisation in the disclosure efforts, saving stakeholders and the public sector significant resources and time spent on ad hoc requests. Similarly, Jordan could track and measure which information is most frequently requested and disclosing this type of information periodically could help increase efficiency.
In this regard, there is still room to improve the prioritisation approach of the Information Council by focusing on uploading updated information that is likely of higher interest to the public first. Jordan could adopt a more strategic outlook to enhance the department’s work efficiency while being more useful for stakeholders. Jordanian officials may benefit from targeted capacity-building and training to this effect.
Accessibility of information through multiple channels
In Jordan, proactively disclosed information is mostly published on each ministry’s or institution’s website and the Official Gazette is used for disclosing legislative information (e.g. constitution, organic laws, decrees, regulations). In many countries, such information is also gathered in a central portal that acts as a one-stop shop for ATI; Jordan could consider this the next step to enhance proactive disclosure of information.
In this regard, the new e-government portal, which has been recently launched by MoDEE, could be a channel to enhance the user experience for citizens, residents and tourists that seek public information online. The portal provides information about Jordan’s geography, population, governmental structure, tourist landmarks, visa procedures, and the history of the Hashemite Royal Family, in addition to information about policy priorities, such as the modernisation roadmap, and about key economic sectors. Furthermore, the new website contains a directory of all government institutions and their contact details, which can facilitate smooth interaction between citizens and government bodies. In regards to digital governmental services, users will be re-directed to the website of Sanad Digital Services to simplify online interactions and enhance efficiency in accessing governmental services.
The website encourages interactive feedback, allowing users to share suggestions and complaints directly with the government through the Bekhedmetkom platform. This website could be populated with some of the key information to be proactively disclosed, such as the governmental entities’ organisational structures, budgets, policy programmes, plans and projects, public services, annual reports, the contact information of all information officers per department, etc. or provide easy links to each departmental website containing this information.
Brazil
To ease the information request process, Brazil created Fala.BR (https://falabr.cgu.gov.br/web/home), an innovative platform combining federal ouvidorias and the Citizen Information Service obligations. It allows citizens to request information and make complaints or claims against any federal body, express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a service or programme and provide suggestions for improving or simplifying public services. Importantly, users can also follow the progress of their request and file an internal appeal in case of non-conformity with the response. In addition, Fala.BR allows the government to provide up-to-date statistics on requests. Overall, by centralising ATI requests into a single system, the Fala.BR platform has significantly simplified the process for citizens, stakeholders and federal government institutions when making or processing an ATI request.
Morocco
In Morocco, the information portal Chafafiya.ma (http://www.chafafiya.ma/) allows any citizens and foreign persons legally residing in Morocco to submit and track information requests by Law 13-31 relating to the right to obtain information. The platform, handled by the Ministry of Digital Transition and Administration Reform, allows users to make requests directly in the portal, follow their progress and receive the information required through the platform in different formats. It also includes data about requests, such as the number of applications that have been submitted so far through the portal at the time of writing (15 490 in total), the number of processed requests and the average response days, among others.
Source: Government of Brazil (n.d.[41]), Fala.BR - Plataforma Integrada de Ouvidoria e Acesso à Informação, https://falabr.cgu.gov.br/publico/Manifestacao/SelecionarTipoManifestacao.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f; Government of Morocco (2024[42]), Chafafiya.ma Information Portal, http://www.chafafiya.ma/, accessed on 20 September 2024.
The accessibility and usability of these online tools are key to ensuring that all citizens can easily locate existing information. Furthermore, these websites and portals should be designed to minimise barriers for both the general public and those with specific needs.
Open data
Jordan has developed an open data platform that allows concerned entities to access governmental data and enables all beneficiaries to access the list of government data available. This platform presents the open datasets in possession of government agencies in open and machine-readable formats so that, according to the conditions in the Jordanian Open Government Data License, datasets published on the platform can be used, reused and redistributed by anyone and in any place for any purpose. This is done in accordance with the Open Government Data Policy issued by MoDEE (formerly the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology) and approved by the Council of Ministers in 2017 (Council of Ministers, 2017[43]) and the instructions for publishing open government data on the open government data platform issued in 2019 (Council of Ministers, 2019[44]). As provided for in the National Digital Transformation Strategy and Implementation Plan (2021-25) (MoDEE, 2021[45]), the government of Jordan, in 2024 through MoDEE, is developing a more advanced platform called an open data portal, which according to OECD interviews will have more modern features in line with international good practices. The portal is being developed and intended to go live in 2024-2025. It will entail a migration of all existing datasets onto the new platform.
Jordan continues to be committed to populating the open data platform and is currently focusing on increasing the number of available datasets. The Roadmap foresees “publish[ing] all data related to governmental services on a government open data management platform and spread awareness of this platform” by the end of 2024. At the same time, a focus on quality is required to ensure that the available datasets are truly useful. The quality of the datasets uploaded onto the platform has been highlighted as a challenge during OECD interviews. It also mentions launching a programme to encourage young people, innovators and programmers to take advantage of open data to provide pioneering work models that help develop services and ways to provide them to customers in new and innovative ways.
Budget transparency would benefit from stronger interinstitutional collaboration and participatory initiatives
The General Budget Department (GBD) at the Ministry of Finance handles Jordan’s efforts towards budget transparency by co‑ordinating inputs across the administration to respond annually to the International Budget Partnership Open Budget Survey, where Jordan has consistently scored 61-63 out of 100, which makes it the highest ranked economy in budget transparency in the MENA region since 2006, and participation in the European Union Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability programme. In addition, the GBD applies a results-oriented approach to budgeting by linking budget programmes to strategic goals and measuring progress with key performance indicators. Moreover, the GBD publishes annual reports of its activities, including results against key performance indicators.
Budget transparency is a fundamental dimension of ATI and can bring important benefits. Evidence shows that fiscal openness benefits citizens, societies and governments through lower corruption, enhanced accountability, more inclusiveness and higher levels of trust (OECD, 2024[46]). It is associated with better macro-economic management, lower borrowing costs and more efficient resource allocation (IMF, 2018[47]). In particular, budget transparency is key to adopting effective budget decisions and monitoring their adequate implementation. Along these lines, the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance (2015[48]), which provides a comprehensive, integrated set of guidance on budget formulation, management and its links with other aspects of good public governance, calls on governments to “ensure that budget documents and data are open, transparent and accessible” (OECD, 2015[48]).
This includes, among others: ensuring the availability of clear, factual budget reports which should inform the key stages of policy formulation, consideration and debate, as well as implementation and review; the presentation of budgetary information in comparable format before the final budget is adopted, providing enough time for effective discussion and debate on policy choices (e.g. a draft budget or a pre-budget report), during the implementation phase (e.g. a mid-year budget report) and after the end of the budget year (e.g. an end-year report) to promote effective decision-making, accountability and oversight; the publication of all budget reports fully, promptly and routinely and in a way that is accessible to citizens, CSOs and other stakeholders; the clear presentation and explanation of the impact of budget measures, whether to do with tax or expenditure, noting that a “citizen’s budget” or budget summary, in a standard and user-friendly format, is one way of achieving this objective; and the design and use of budget data to facilitate and support other important government objectives such as open government, integrity, programme evaluation and policy co‑ordination across national and subnational levels of government (OECD, 2015[48]).
With a score of 60 in the Open Budget Survey (2023), since 2006, Jordan is the best placed among all the MENA economies that participate in the survey, which include Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen (IMF et al., 2023[49]).
The GBD strives to raise awareness of the budget process among Jordanian citizens through awareness campaigns, as well as among public institutions that need to implement transparency in their budgets. In 2023, they were especially focused on conducting a campaign for university students on budget execution. The GBD has identified growing the application of budget transparency at the regional and local levels as a particular challenge.
Despite the GBD’s strong commitment to transparency, OECD interviews highlighted that they would benefit from co‑ordinating more systematically with other institutions focusing on transparency and participation in Jordan, such as the Information Council. In this regard, several opportunities have been identified to strengthen the GBD’s performance on budget transparency through stronger interinstitutional collaboration with specialised bodies.
First, Jordan’s performance in budget transparency and participation would benefit from stronger co‑operation between the GBD and the Audit Bureau of Jordan, given the latter’s expertise in monitoring public policies, as well as with the Tax and Customs Departments, which are key entities when it comes to budget development. This would support the creation of a more cohesive ecosystem conducive to budget transparency and possibly improve performance in the Open Budget Survey.
Second, Jordan scores low on the Open Budget Survey pillar concerning participation in the elaboration of budgets and could benefit from strengthening how citizens engage with the budget process. In this regard, the GBD has developed a Citizen Guide, which presents a user-friendly summary of the draft budget laws, and published it on its website to enable citizens to provide comments on the draft law, which is open for consultation. Although there is a window on the GBD’s website to receive comments and inquiries from citizens, there is a need for a dedicated and user-friendly channel to receive citizen inputs. In this regard, the GBD could significantly benefit from co‑operating with MoDEE through the e-participation platform currently being developed in collaboration with the Legislation and Opinion Bureau, which could serve as the right platform to conduct citizen consultations on draft budget laws. In addition to this option, the GBD and line ministries should consider involving citizens in all stages of the budget law drafting process, such as its formulation or implementation, and not only to provide comments once the law is finalised.
Jordan has also conducted some participatory budgeting efforts at the local level in recent years, engaging local communities in the decision-making process of their governorate councils’ budgets. However, this type of participation method has not been implemented nationally. The GBD could benefit from implementing innovative participatory budgeting initiatives at the national budget level2 (see Chapter 3 on Promoting Responsiveness and Stakeholder Participation). An additional option may be to establish a dedicated team or official in charge of citizen participation in budget affairs to increase specialisation and capacities at the institutional level.
Finally, the GBD makes available an email address, telephone and WhatsApp numbers to receive inputs, questions and information requests from citizens, but they receive a very limited number of requests, the ones received being largely from journalists. Jordan could strengthen co‑ordination between the Information Council and the GBD to ensure that the department uses adequate ATI forms, benefitting from the established procedures through the ATI Law and the three ATI protocols. In addition, the GBD could carry out awareness campaigns to promote these mechanisms so that citizens can request budgetary information and participate in the budget process.
Ensuring agile and trustworthy reactive disclosure of information
Reactive disclosure refers to citizens’ right to request information that is not made publicly available. The amended ATI Law foresees the right of every Jordanian to obtain the information they require according to the provisions of the law if he or she has a legitimate interest or reason and describes the possibility of making a request in Article 7. In 2022, within the 54 institutions that reported their ATI activities to the Information Council, 4 016 requests for information were received in 41 public institutions. Out of these, 3 845 requests for information were accepted, while 171 requests were denied, reaching an approval rate of 95.74%.
High approval rates have remained stable during the past 10 years in the reporting institutions (Table 2.1), never dropping below 90%, which can be a strong positive indicator of the practical application of ATI in the country. However, the quality of the information provided in response to requests and users’ satisfaction with the information and process, should also be analysed to provide a holistic assessment. The vast majority of requests are submitted by individual citizens (87% in 2022), followed by researchers (11%) and journalists (2%). Despite these numbers, civil society and journalist stakeholders pointed out during the OECD fact-finding mission that the perceived number of denials is higher and that there is a perceived lack of transparency. Jordan could benefit from the publication of yearly reports with the numbers of received requests versus acceptance and denial. Also, Jordan could carry out further research to understand if the perception of lack of transparency is due to the quality and presentation of the information.
Noticeably, the number of requests received across institutions has varied widely during the past decade, reaching a peak of 13 349 requests in 2018 after a surge between 2016 and 2018, but then dropping significantly by 2020 to 2 220 requests (Figure 2.5). One explanation as pointed out by relevant stakeholders is the increasing proactive disclosure of information by the government, as well as the creation of the open data platform, which has had a positive effect by making key information available, therefore reducing the number of requests from the public and lowering transaction costs for the administration. An additional reason for the sharp drop in 2020 might be the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially on in-person requests. Jordan could consider carrying out some research in this regard to understand the fluctuations of requests and address any gaps and bottlenecks for users.
The institutions that received the most requests in 2022 were the Service and Public Administration Commission (SPAC. formerly the Civil Service Bureau), the Department of Statistics, the Jordan Customs department and the National Library (see Figure 2.6).
Cumulatively, these four institutions received roughly 70% of all ATI requests across the 124 institutions to which the ATI Law applies. While the top receiving institutions are not the same every year, this information could facilitate implementation efforts. Jordan could consider targeting the institutions that receive the most requests first and focus on those with a smaller percentage later. This could make the administration more responsive to citizen and stakeholder needs and faster than attempting to strengthen ATI over a hundred institutions.
Note: These figures respond to the institutions that reported their ATI activities to the Information Council, out of the 124 public entities the law applies to. To have a full representation of ATI requests’ approval rates in Jordan, information from all of the institutions would be required.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2024.
Note: This information reflects requests received by the institutions that provided annual reports to the Information Council.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2023.
Note: SPAC, (formerly the Civil Bureau) received 928 requests, the Jordan Customs department 891, the Department of Statistics 686 and the National Library 298 in 2022.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2023.
Any person or stakeholder should be able to request information
In principle, any person, regardless of age, gender, religious belief, legal status and political affiliation, and any institution or organisation, whether governmental or non-governmental, from civil society, academia, the media or the private sector, should be able to request information. In Jordan, according to Article 7 of the amended ATI Law, any Jordanian national natural or legal person with a legitimate interest or reason has the right to make such requests. Non-national legal residents may also make these requests if there is a reciprocal provision towards Jordanians in their country of origin. This presents a positive development regarding the former ATI Law since the amended law clarifies that the right to make requests applies to Jordanian legal persons (such as companies and civil society) and foresees that previously excluded foreign legal residents could obtain information. However, there is still room to align with most OECD countries, 82% of which stipulate that “anyone can file a request for information” without further qualifications, according to the 2020 Survey on Open Government.
As mentioned, the amended ATI Law requires a legitimate interest justification when people apply to obtain information. In line with international standards, the absence of motivation should not serve as a reason to reject the request and the motive or reason for the request should not be a prerequisite. Only a few countries globally require a motive, while others do not require the intention behind the request but allow requestors to state their reasons, which may be considered for resolution of the request.
An additional obstacle in Jordan is that the term “legitimate interest” is neither defined nor limited, which could potentially give place to contradictory interpretations at the discretion of the public institutions. In this sense, Jordan could clearly define what is comprised under “legitimate interest” in line with international standards in the new bylaws for the amended law.
Protecting the identity of requestors
The amended ATI Law foresees that an official form to request information in Jordan shall be approved. The form, which presumably will continue to be the same one used to date, is readily available on the website of the Information Council as well as on the websites of almost all ministries.3 It requires the full name of requestors, their national number, a copy of their identity card, their home and work addresses, their employer’s name, their contact details including phone, fax number, email and post office box, the purpose and legitimate interest for requesting information, the object of the request (i.e. what information is needed), the requested format (carbon copy, compact disc or other) and the signature of the requester. In the case of organisations, the information required is the name, registration type, number and date of authorisation letter and the name of the authorised person. The form also includes a commitment to be signed by the requestor stating that he or she will use the information for the purpose specified in the request form and that they will make reference to the information source.
Protecting the identity of requestors is important to avoid the risk of profiling citizens and acting on biases by governments. However, it is an area where global progress is required and 75% of OECD member respondents to the 2020 Open Government Survey and MENA respondents, such as Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia, still do not allow for anonymous requests (OECD, 2022[29]). Only 18% of all respondents have a legislative framework that explicitly protects the integrity and privacy of individuals and parties that file a request for information, for example in Mexico, Poland and Sweden. Alternatively, some countries require information to be filled in but do not verify it, enabling the use of pseudonyms to protect the requestor’s identity or limiting the number of public officials who can access that information (OECD, 2022[29]). In the case of Jordan, an initial step in this direction could be to avoid mandatory completion of all categories that are not essential to fulfilling the request, such as requesting a single contact method and only requiring the employer’s details if the request is made in the context of the person’s work.
Ease of filing requests and measures for inclusiveness
The process of filing an ATI request in Jordan, especially following the increasingly frequent application of the three ATI protocols, is relatively straightforward. It can be done in person or on line through the standard form approved by the Information Council. It is free of charge, except for costs linked to the reproduction of materials (e.g. printing), as mentioned below. Most ministries have this form readily available on their website to fill in digitally or download for printing. Leveraging the opportunity to review their practices in accordance with the amended ATI Law, Jordanian public entities could consider reviewing their websites to ensure the ATI form is easily identifiable on their website’s homepage.
The availability of both in-person and digital options for filing requests is a positive aspect of fostering inclusiveness. It can bridge the digital access and skills gaps and make it more accessible for the elderly.
Through its protocols, Jordan aims to apply several measures to facilitate the request process for users. The Protocol on Enforcement Procedures for ATI states that if the information is not within the competency of the department, the department should, if possible, redirect users to the relevant authority. In addition, information officers (officials designated in each institution as focal points for ATI requests, according to the protocols) can be contacted by users for assistance, although the process of reaching officers and where to find their contact information is often unclear. The amended ATI Law provides for the proactive disclosure of information officer contact information, which can be implemented as a priority, a quick measure that can significantly facilitate reactive requests for information.
Concerning inclusiveness, vulnerable demographics such as individuals belonging to low socio-economic groups, youth, migrants, refugees, rural populations and individuals with disabilities encounter additional challenges in exercising their rights regarding ATI. The 2020 Open Government Survey findings indicated that 44% of OECD countries, as well as Morocco and Tunisia, incorporate measures in their ATI laws to offer supplementary support to these groups when making requests and 50% actively implement such support in practice (OECD, 2022[29]). For example, in Tunisia, the ATI law establishes that the person in charge of access to information in each institution must provide the necessary assistance to the applicant for access in case of a disability or illiteracy and when the applicant is deaf or blind. In Jordan, the amended ATI Law renders the information officer responsible for facilitating the process for people with disabilities, illiterate citizens and the elderly (Article 9.G). However, there is no evidence that measures for information officers to assist currently exist in Jordan. Taking into account the high numbers of refugees, as well as the large percentage of young people in Jordan (one-third of the total population are children), for instance, the country could consider prioritising specific tools to facilitate accessibility for these constituents and for people with disabilities. Figure 2.7 outlines some of the main processes put in place globally to facilitate ATI requests.
Percentage of countries that provided data in the OECD Survey on Open Government
Note: Sweden did not respond to this question.
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, in OECD (2022[29]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
Accessibility of cost
Ensuring that requests are free of charge is one of the most important ways to reduce obstacles to citizens and stakeholders exercising their right to information. Costs associated with requests can either greatly discourage citizens from lower socio-economic backgrounds from submitting a request or make it impossible for them to do so. Filing a request for information does not involve a cost in 82% of OECD countries. However, as in Jordan, it is common to have costs associated with obtaining the requested information in practice. For example, fees may be involved for searching and retrieving information (as in 31% of OECD countries) and in the event the requester wishes to have documents or other materials mailed to them (48% of OECD countries). ATI requests and appeals/complaints filed with the Information Council are free of charge in Jordan. Article 17 of the amended ATI Law specifies that the costs incurred for “copying of the information required” should be specified by an Information Council decision. A committee was formed for this purpose and issued a list of costs which detailed the different formats of the requested information and specified costs for some formats (printed A4- and A3-size paper, images, photos and documentary films). The committee allowed each institution the discretion to specify the costs for other remaining formats (maps, sketches, video tapes, audio and video). Printing A4 pages is free of charge for the first ten pages. This information was published in Prime Minister’s Circular No. 67/11/1/1514 dated 23 January 2008.
Therefore, Jordan’s practices align with international standards. Jordan could nonetheless consider harmonising the costs for the remaining formats not specified in the prime minister’s circular to avoid differences among institutions, as well as consider introducing waivers for requestors from low-income backgrounds.
Ensuring a clear process and timelines
Having clear and respected timeliness standards is crucial as it provides certainty and transparency to requestors on how long the process for their request will last. In Jordan, requests filed under the former ATI Law had to be fulfilled in 30 days, which has been shortened to 15 days in the 2024 ATI Law with the possibility of another 10-day extension only for 1 time and justifiable reasons (Article 9 of the amended ATI Law). In practice, however, according to information received from the Information Council, the average number of days to receive an answer is lower (Table 2.2).
Note: .. - Not available.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2023.
While the amendments can be seen as an improvement, the administration’s capacity to absorb these requests and reply on time should be taken into account. This is especially the case because, according to the legal framework, while rejected requests should be “justified and reasoned”, a lack of reply is considered a denial of request (Article 9.E of the amended ATI Law), which could act as an incentive for authorities not to reply. This enables an appeal of the resolution but does not provide the requestor with the necessary information to adequately argue their appeal, as the grounds for denial have not been shared. Jordan could consider transforming the negative administrative silence into positive and justify every time, creating a bias in favour of ATI, as well as an incentive for authorities to react to requests within the required timelines.
An additional positive development contained in the amended ATI Law is the inclusion of an obligation to confirm receipt of ATI requests (Article 9.C). This provision embeds in the law the content of the Protocol on Enforcement Procedures for ATI, whereby public authorities are required to confirm their receipt of requests, both on line and in person. This is in line with the practices of 39% of respondent OECD countries to the 2020 Open Government Survey (OECD, 2022[29]). In denying a request, they must also inform users of the possibility to appeal and the timeline and process to do so.
Exemptions from disclosure: Use of exceptions, appeal processes and sanctions
Exceptions
Countries can have legitimate reasons to exempt some information from being disclosed. For instance, the specific information at hand might constitute a risk to national security or international relations, or it could unveil an individual’s personal data, violating their privacy. That said, exceptions must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate. In Jordan, Article 12 of the amended ATI Law outlines existing exceptions4 in an article that presents limited but relevant modifications regarding the former ATI Law.
As can be observed in Box 2.5, many exceptions in Jordan’s ATI Law conform to international standards regarding the interests that may override the right to information. However, some exceptions are overly broad and lack safeguards often present in other ATI laws.
According to international standards, exemptions to providing ATI include:
national security (i.e. information that would compromise the safety of a country against threats such as terrorism, war or espionage)
international relations (i.e. information that would compromise relations with other countries)
personal data (i.e. information that would infringe on an individual’s right to privacy)
commercial confidentiality (i.e. information that would compromise the privacy of sensitive information of individual firms)
public health and safety (i.e. information that would compromise the health and safety of the public or a specific demographic)
law enforcement and public order information received in confidence
the prevention, investigation and prosecution of legal wrongs
fair administration of justice and legal advice privilege
privacy
legitimate commercial and other economic interests
management of the economy
conservation of the environment
legitimate policymaking and other operations of public authorities.
Sources: OECD (2022[29]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en; based on Article 19 (2016[50]), The Public’s Right to Know: Principles on Right to Information Legislation, https://www.article19.org/data/files/RTI_Principles_Updated_EN.pdf; OAS (2020[51]), Inter-American Model Law 2.0 on Access to Public Information, http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/publication_Inter-American_Model_Law_2_0_on_Access_to_Public_Information.pdf; OECD (2016[39]), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
The formulation of Article 12 in the amended ATI Law partly addresses several relevant concerns raised by the former ATI Law. First, in the previous law, any exceptions in other laws overrode the ATI Law. That sentence has now been removed from Article 12, opening the door to a more favourable interpretation for ATI in the event of conflicts among laws. The article explicitly establishes the prevalence of the Personal Data Protection Law over the ATI Law. However, the priority of the ATI Law over others is not explicitly mentioned, which may cause a conflict of laws. This may happen with Law no. 50 of 1971, for the Protection of the State’s Secrets and Documents, which stipulates broadly that any information that has a “bad effect on public morale” is classified as restricted, as well as any protected information or document that may “defame an official figure” or “abuse the status of the state”. While conflicts of laws are normally determined by the administrative courts, such a conflict may be overly complicated for public officials and information officers in their day-to-day responses to ATI requests, which may rarely reach the justice system. Jordanian institutions could consider clarifying this aspect to facilitate the implementation of the amended ATI law.
Second, in line with the contents of Article 3 of the Information Classification Protocol, the amended ATI Law incorporates a harm and public interest test (“The Council may assess the extent to which the public interest exists in disclosing the information contained in Paragraph A of this Article excluding clauses (1), (2), (6), (7)” and a harm test (it now refers to “Information that may cause harm to national defence or state security or its foreign policies” [emphasis added] as opposed to the previous wording which referred to “secrets related to national defence, state security or foreign policy”). The amended ATI Law also stipulates that information related to human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity will never be considered confidential. These three additions are considered in line with international good practices.
One further positive development of the amended ATI Law is that it foresees in Article 13 that a bylaw will be issued outlining rules for the classification of information as confidential, in line with the recommendation made above to enshrine the content of the protocols into bylaws. This opens the door to resolving the gap in the former ATI Law, where the specific criteria for information to be classified were not stipulated anywhere and were left at the discretion of the public officials in charge of each request. At the same time, Jordan could consider interpreting the amended ATI Law through an “open-by-default” lens, whereby anything that does not fall under the exception regime of Article 13 is considered accessible to the public.
Some challenges remain in the wording of the exceptions in the new Article 12, given that they are broad and loosely defined compared to international good practices. For instance, the exceptions to protect intellectual property rights (which are not limited to private rights but comprise the government’s copyright over its documents) and private correspondence could cover a vast amount of otherwise shareable information, placing limits on almost all publicly held information. Thus, through bylaws and leveraging the new harm and public interest provisions, Jordan could consider clarifying the scope of exceptions in line with international standards.
As in Jordan, in the event of a denial of a request for ATI, 96% of all respondents to the Open Government Survey 2020 require a justification to be provided based on the use of exceptions. Implementing such a requirement is beneficial because it serves as a deterrent, discouraging public officials from casually rejecting requests (OECD, 2022[29]). Instead, it encourages them to thoroughly assess the legitimacy of the exception or consult with the relevant authorised officials or oversight bodies to determine the viability of the exception. While a reply with justification is also required by law in Jordan, administrative silence is equated with denial, diminishing the need for a justified reply in practice. A better practice would be to consider the administrative silence as positive while allowing requestors to appeal on the grounds of lack of respect for the 15-day limit.
Despite the broad exception regime, which in legal terms is considered a limitation to the right to ATI, the highly positive response rates to ATI requests may suggest that they do not become an obstacle in practice. Further information regarding how the statistics on approvals and denials are created would help clarify this point.
Limited numbers of appeals could point to burdensome procedures
Article 16 of the amended ATI Law in Jordan reflects two possibilities for appealing denied ATI requests. Requestors may make an external appeal to the Information Council after the denial of a request, whether an explicit denial with a justification or administrative silence, or attempt a judicial appeal in the administrative courts in the 30 days following the denial of a request. Two such processes cannot take place simultaneously but requestors are not obliged to seek an appeal before the Information Council before resorting to the judicial route.
Appeals to the Information Council are free of charge and must be resolved in writing or by administrative silence within 30 days. It is not clear in the law whether denials of the appeal must be justified, as the need for justification is only mentioned concerning original ATI requests, which could be further clarified. Appeals received in the Information Council are very limited compared to the total number of denied requests (see Table 2.3). In 2022, only 1 appeal reached the Information Council out of the 171 denied requests and 2 in 2023. In this regard, some stakeholders have highlighted that a significant obstacle from appealing to the Information Council is the perception that they are rarely accepted, which constitutes a loss of time and effort. This seems to align with the available evidence of the limited number of appeals.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2023.
Stakeholders have also pointed out during interviews that, on occasion, appealing is perceived negatively by the original institution to which the request was made, as it entails bringing a complaint to a high-level body (the Information Council) and can cause the loss of an otherwise good relationship. During the fact-finding interviews, several requestors expressed that they would rather maintain their positive relationship with the public institution in question or even rely on it for their work (for instance, journalists who regularly receive information from the government), which acts as an obstacle when they consider appealing. In this regard, Jordan could consider the introduction of a third way of appeal, the internal appeal (i.e. to the same institution that denied the original request for information), which is present in 85% of the OECD member respondents to the Open Government Survey (OECD, 2022[29]). This is especially the case in view of the fact that Information Council resolutions are not binding and there is no mechanism for enforcement of such decisions. It has been reported by different users that, on occasion, the original institution does not comply with Information Council decisions, which does not carry any consequences. Hence, Jordan could consider strengthening the legal value and enforceability of Information Council decisions.
At the administrative courts, appeals must be made through a licensed lawyer with a minimum of 5 years of practice and the fees for a requestor to submit an appeal range between JOD 30 and 300. Taken together, these two characteristics may embed the process with high costs and complexity, especially for individual requestors from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In many of the OECD countries surveyed on open government in 2020, judicial appeals for this purpose did not require a lawyer unless the requestor voluntarily wanted one (75%) and, in some cases, the lawyers were free of cost (25%) (OECD, 2022[29]). Jordan could consider adopting these practices to significantly ease the appeals process for Jordanian citizens and stakeholders.
In Jordan, the judicial appeal must rely on evidence that the denial was against the provisions of the amended ATI Law, putting the onus on the requestor to prove that the denial was wrongful and not on the public institution to prove that the denial was in accordance with legal exceptions. Shifting the burden of proof onto the public institution to justify its decision to the court would be in line with a default approach in favour of ATI and, thus, with good practice. In 2022, the administrative courts did not receive any ATI-related appeals.5 This may point to a perception that the process is burdensome and costly, for the reasons mentioned above, underlining room for improvement in the accessibility of judicial appeals.
On the other hand, some of the human rights complaints mechanisms in different public institutions (see Chapter 3 on Promoting Responsiveness and Stakeholder Participation) may, on occasion, be used by citizens to appeal denied requests, as wrongful denials can affect the right to ATI. Some other stakeholders may use such channels to point to systematic failures in implementing ATI in some public entities. Once made, these requests should be examined by the relevant bodies and submitted to the Information Council if needed, through institutionalised channels.
The lack of sanctions for systematic failures to comply with ATI creates negative incentives and would benefit from revision
Establishing sanctions for public officials or institutions who fail to meet the obligations outlined in ATI laws is important. Some OECD countries that enforce sanctions are Chile, Mexico and multiple states in the United States. The lack of sanctions can create negative incentives, resulting in breaches of an ATI law, such as overly broad application of exemptions or simply administrative silence. It can also be the source of weak enforcement of the law. The amended ATI Law does not impose any sanctions for those who wilfully obstruct access or implementation of the law nor for public authorities that systematically fail to implement the right to information properly.
At the same time, in Jordan, there are severe legal consequences for sharing confidential information under other laws. Under Law no. 50 of 1971 for the Protection of the State’s Secrets and Documents, releasing information considered confidential or restricted can lead to prison sentences ranging from 10 to 25 years and up to the death penalty. In addition, according to Article 69 of the Civil Service Bureau Regulation of 2020 and its amendments, “The employee is prohibited, under penalty of disciplinary responsibility, from undertaking any of the following actions: (…) b) To keep any official document or message, or a copy of it, or pictures of it, or to disclose it to any external party, or write or to give out outside the workplace without that being of his powers, except for the documents that reveal corruption, then he is referred to the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (JIACC) or to the competent authority in the department based on what the complainant decides”. It is clear in the text that only corruption cases fall within the scope of this article, while ATI requests covered by the ATI Law is not mentioned. The related disciplinary responsibilities outlined in Article 142 of the same law include reductions in the employee’s monthly salary, withholding annual salary increases for up to five years, dismissal and impeachment.
The amended ATI Law does not protect officials who disclose information under the ATI Law in good faith. Coupled with the high penalties mentioned, this fact can strongly disincentivise sharing even simple and benign information, especially in cases where full information classification has not been conducted. In this sense, Jordan could consider amending the ATI Law in the future to include sanctions and a good faith exemption or, if possible, introducing these through bylaws, further aligning Jordanian practices with international standards and modifying the current incentives at play in favour of transparency.
Jordan’s institutional framework for ATI and transparency
The institutional landscape in Jordan for access to information reflects a multi-faceted approach to transparency, with various bodies working to ensure that the right to ATI is upheld. The ATI Law in Jordan foresees that access to information shall be primarily implemented by the Information Council and the Information Commissioner. However, as outlined below, the need to implement transparency across public entities in a co‑ordinated manner and the nature of ATI as a fundamental right, illustrate a more complex institutional landscape in practice.
The Information Council and the Information Commissioner
The Information Council was established by Article 3 of the former ATI Law. The Minister of Culture chairs it and includes the Information Commissioner, namely the director of the Department of the National Library, as vice-chairman. Members of the council are the secretaries-general of the Ministries of Justice, Interior and the Media Higher Council, the directors of the Department of Statistics, the National Information Technology Center and the Armed Forces, and the Human Rights Commissioner. The amended ATI Law has broadened the composition of the council to include the secretary-general of the Ministry of Government Communication, the secretary-general of MoDEE, the heads of the Jordanian Press Association and Jordan Bar Association. These inclusions have the potential to make the council more effective and inclusive, including for the first-time professional associations of two key professions in relation to the right to ATI. Furthermore, the newly-created Ministry of Government Communication may have a fundamental role to play in relation to ATI while respecting the limits between communications and proactively disclosed information.
The Information Council’s role is to ensure the provision of information for requesters within the limits of the ATI Law. It receives the complaints submitted thereto by the information requesters and resolves them. The council also approves the standard paper and online information request form and is responsible for undertaking the appropriate activities to explain and enhance the right to information. Furthermore, the council approves the annual report on enforcing the right to ATI submitted by the Information Commissioner to the prime minister and, since the entry into force of the amended ATI law, to parliament. The chairman and the members of the Information Council have no right to remuneration and carry out this role in addition to their high-level responsibilities.
The Information Commissioner (Article 6 of the ATI Law) is responsible for preparing instructions for the acceptance, resolution and submission of complaints to the council for resolution. He or she also receives the complaints from information requestors and presents them to the council for resolution (Official Gazette, 2024[37]).
The Department of the National Library
The Department of the National Library was established in 1975 as one of the departments of the Ministry of Culture. The department and the Center for Documents were merged into the National Library in 1994. Its main tasks include keeping, organising and introducing to the public the national intellectual product issued both inside and outside Jordan, collecting and keeping books, manuscripts, periodicals, photographs, recordings, videotapes and other materials relevant to Jordanian heritage, to the Arab world and Arabic and Islamic civilisation and to human heritage in general, as well as collecting government documents from ministries and public departments and institutions.
In accordance with Article 6 of the ATI Law, the department shall render the administrative and professional services required to fulfil the duties and liabilities vested in the Information Council and Information Commissioner (its director) (Official Gazette, 2024[37]).
The Jordan Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (JIACC)
According to Article 4(d) of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Law (Law no. 13/2016), JIACC aims to ensure compliance with the principles of national integrity and anti-corruption through, among others, ensuring that the executive branch is committed to transparency when developing (...) policies, decision-making and ensuring citizens’ right to access information in accordance with legislation. Since being merged with the ombuds office in 2016, JIACC has also been a promoter and guardian of a culture of transparency in the public sector – a key building block of integrity and anti-corruption efforts. Transparency is, therefore, also one of the criteria in JIACC’s National Integrity Index, developed in collaboration with CSO Al Hayat-Rased. The National Integrity Index is built through several indicators, including the Compliance Matrix for public institutions and the Integrity Survey for public officials. The questions related to the “transparency” criteria in both the Compliance Matrix and the survey were developed together with the Department of the National Library.
The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MoPIC)
The Open Government Unit under MoPIC was established in 2018 to help all concerned governmental institutions and CSOs monitor and follow up on Jordan’s participation in the OGP. Nowadays, most institutions in charge of OGP NAPs globally are moving ahead to also work on bolstering transparency, establishing and institutionalising the participatory consultation approach in public affairs management, and becoming interconnected with all stakeholders in the sector, including government institutions, CSOs and concerned international organisations within a framework of co‑operation and co‑ordination. As such, MoPIC plays a relevant role in implementing ATI. The unit also played a key role in the co‑ordination of efforts under Commitment no. 5 of the Fourth OGP NAP, including in the development of the three ATI protocols, and under Commitment no. 5 of the Fifth OGP NAP regarding the development of the Integrity Compliance Matrix.
The Service and Public Administration Commission (SPAC)
The recently established SPAC has the mission to develop and enhance the administrative services provided by public institutions and establish principles of governance and compliance in public administration. Among other tasks, this includes responsibilities related to transparency. SPAC is expected to employ a large staff of experts to guide public bodies in developing competencies and using instruments that facilitate their adherence to the highest standards of quality in public administration, including potentially in the field of ATI.
The Institute of Public Administration (IPA)
The IPA was established as one of the first institutes in the MENA region to specialise in training, capacity building, studies, research and consultation in various areas of public administration. The institute offers civil servants a variety of training programmes that respond and are aligned with national priorities and plans. It also offers training and capacity-building services to any other interested party, including from different sectors and countries. Training courses and materials focus on strengthening the principles and concepts of governance, excellence, sustainability, leadership and innovation (IPA, n.d.[52]). The institute may thus provide an excellent platform to develop the competencies of public servants in terms of ATI and raise their awareness of its relevance, which is key to its effective implementation.
The King Abdullah II Center for Excellence (KACE)
KACE is dedicated to promoting a culture of excellence and innovation in the public and private sectors, as well as in non-governmental organisations. To do so, the centre develops national excellence frameworks and evaluation criteria, assesses the organisation’s performance, supports advancing skills in excellence and innovation and manages the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence. For the public sector, the Award for Excellence in Government Performance and Transparency is considered the highest at the national level. These awards can provide a good means to reward the efforts of different institutions regarding ATI as well as to raise awareness of its importance throughout the Jordanian public sector.
The administrative courts
Jordan’s administrative courts have an important role in guaranteeing the enforcement of access to information, given that they constitute the last instance of appeal for denied ATI requests. These courts provide a legal avenue for resolving disputes and ensuring that the principles of transparency and accountability are upheld. In turn, a resolution of the ordinary administrative courts can be appealed in the High Administrative Court.
The National Center for Human Rights (NCHR)
The NCHR is an independent national institution established in 2006 through Law no. 51/2006, which is not affiliated with any ministry or other entity. The prime minister nominates its board of trustees and King Abdullah II ratifies its appointment by royal decree. In turn, the board of trustees appoints the NCHR’s commissioner general. The centre’s budget comes from the General State Budget. The NCHR mainly receives complaints about civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and grievances related to the violation of these rights by the public authorities. They can make unannounced site visits to different institutions and places of detention to monitor the human rights situation on the ground throughout the country. The NCHR’s annual report, which assesses compliance with human rights, often points to gaps in government practices. The report is submitted to the king, the upper and lower houses of parliament and the Cabinet and is publishes on the NCHR website. NCHR recommendations are not legally binding. The NCHR has regularly included references to ATI in its annual reports, referenced in other parts of this chapter. Regarding ATI, the centre has an employee dedicated to right to access information and freedom of expression files and monitors the situation in practice regarding these rights. Through its relevant mechanism, the NCHR can receive ATI complaints that can be investigated and formally communicated to any institution across the three branches of power, coupled with a request to end any abusive practice. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commissioner sits on the Information Council.
The government co‑ordinator for human rights and the Human Rights Unit at the Prime Ministry
At the Prime Ministry, the position of government co‑ordinator for human rights (GCHR) was created in 2014. The GCHR’s mandate is to review and suggest amendments to national legislation and laws to align them with international conventions related to human rights ratified by Jordan, receive complaints concerning human rights violations submitted to the PMO by citizens and institutions, investigate these complaints in co‑ordination with the competent authorities, and raise awareness and promote a culture of human rights throughout society utilising various means, maintaining channels of communication and co‑operation with international organisations, CSOs and institutions advocating for human rights. The Human Rights Unit at the PMO also follows up on all issues related to human rights violations. As such, the GCHR and the Human Rights Unit at the PMO have a fundamental role in aligning governmental policies with the right to access information in line with the ICCPR, including suggesting appropriate amendments to the ATI Law and how it is implemented. The GCHR must also respond to the NCHR’s report recommendations and measure progress towards international human rights standards. Given that such reports often reference weaknesses in the legal and enforcement of ATI, the GCHR has an additional mandate to protect this right.
The Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship (MoDEE)
MoDEE supports policies to enable Jordan’s transformation into a digital economy. In this regard, it has developed a procedural framework for classifying, measuring and evaluating the quality of open government datasets and designing and developing a web application to measure and facilitate the open dataset quality assessment based on the new procedural framework. MoDEE manages Jordan’s Open Government Data Platform,6 which aims to provide a unified store of open data held by governmental institutions. On the other hand, MoDEE handles the online Bekhedmetkom platform, which gathers citizens’ inputs and human rights complaints (for a detailed description and analysis of this platform, see Chapter 3 on Promoting Responsiveness and Stakeholder Participation).
Strengthening leadership and interinstitutional co‑ordination
Empowering the Information Council in its role to enforce, monitor and promote the 2024 ATI Law
The mandate and responsibilities of access to information bodies across OECD and partner countries vary widely but can be largely grouped into enforcement, monitoring and promotion of ATI law. The Information Council, supported by the Department of the National Library, is mandated by the amended ATI Law (Article 4) to carry out the following tasks (Official Gazette, 2024[37]):
Ensuring that information is provided to those requesting it in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Developing the necessary plans to ensure the right to obtain information and the council’s work progress.
Promoting the culture of the right to access information.
Approving the information request paper and electronic forms.
Considering the appeals and complaints submitted by information requesters and deciding on them.
Approving the annual report on the council’s work.
Submitting the annual report to the prime minister and parliament and publishing it on the council’s website.
Proposing draft laws, regulations and instructions.
Given the above considerations, the Information Council seems responsible for enforcement (ensuring that information is provided to those requesting it, developing the necessary plans, proactively disclosing the information requested, etc.), monitoring (through annual reports) and promotion (by promoting a culture of the right to ATI) of the ATI Law.
The high-level nature of the Information Council, gathering an interinstitutional team of governmental authorities, has strengths in that it can leverage its influence to brainstorm and adopt strategic policies surrounding ATI. This may be especially effective in the development of policy plans and in leading a cultural transformation in the public sector backed by high-level commitment. However, the current placement of the ATI oversight institution within the Department of the National Library – given the department’s history and its responsibilities to maintain the country’s archives – has understandably meant that the right to ATI has been included in the department’s focus on indexing and the scanning of documents, rather than in a modernised vision for transparency. In this sense, there is room for the Information Council to adopt a forward-thinking strategy for ATI at the national level and consequently fully embody its leadership role in ATI policies.
At the same time, the high-level nature of the Information Council can have drawbacks as it has very limited implementation means. While the administrative support provided by the Department of the National Library can help deal with information requests, the council is not currently supported by adequate human and financial resources to carry out the ambitious tasks outlined above. There is only one person in the department dedicated on a part-time basis to the role of secretariat to the Information Council, which leaves limited capacities to develop ATI policies and plans in the vein of Article 4, carry out awareness-raising initiatives, ensure that ATI requests are adequately fulfilled across the many institutions involved, provide tailored advice to individual institutions on implementation of ATI, etc. Jordan could consider strengthening the human and financial capacities that support the Information Council with a dedicated team to ensure the full implementation of the amended ATI Law.
Another way to strengthen the Information Council would be to strengthen its enforcement capacities, that is to provide a binding nature to its resolutions, capacitate it to issue sanctions against non-complying institutions and provide it with ways to enforce them towards the rest of institutions to which the ATI Law applies.
In the medium to longer term, Jordan could consider creating an institution or department that focuses solely on ATI implementation, with adequate resources, staff and capacities to undertake this task. In the majority of OECD countries, this institution is established either as an independent oversight entity or as an authority within the executive power (Figure 2.8). Box 2.6 provides examples of the different institutional arrangements for ATI in several countries. Regardless of the chosen option, establishing a dedicated department to pursue the full implementation of the ATI law across the administration could be of value to Jordan.
An Independent oversight institution: The National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (INAI) of Mexico
Following the adoption of the Mexican ATI law in 2002, INAI was first established as a decentralised body of the Ministry of the Interior. Due to its lack of autonomy, many stakeholders, including citizens and politicians across the political spectrum, demanded the creation of an autonomous body, which was then created through a constitutional reform in 2014. Given that INAI is a constitutional body, it is independent of other state authorities and, therefore, free from the influence of the executive, legislative or judiciary branches of government.
The INAI comprises seven commissioners designated by the Congress of the Mexican Federal Union to guarantee their independence. The law establishes that stakeholder profiles with relevant experience in ATI and the protection of personal data should be chosen.
Currently, the main role of INAI is to guarantee that 865 federal public entities grant access to public information in line with the law. It also responds to appeals, co‑ordinates the National Transparency System and promotes transparency and ATI more broadly. Since 2003 until the end of 2020, more than 2 million requests for ATI have been made. In that same period, requesters made more than 100 000 appeals.
The INAI has represented one of the most important democratic advances in Mexico and has been key to exposing several high-profile cases unveiling corruption and human rights abuses through the use of ATI.
An oversight institution in the executive branch: Brazil’s Office of the Comptroller General (Controladoria-Geral da União, CGU)
Brazil’s national ATI law mandates that the federal executive branch designates oversight responsibility to a specific body over federal bodies (Article 41). This responsibility was assigned to the CGU by federal decree. The CGU is the body of internal control of the federal government and is responsible for carrying out activities related to the defence of public assets and increasing transparency through public audit actions, correction, prevention and the fight against corruption. As part of its attributions, the CGU is responsible for increasing awareness of the right to ATI, providing ATI training, promoting a culture of transparency and submitting an annual report to national congress on this matter.
Oversight by the ombudsman: The case of Denmark
The Parliamentary Ombudsman in Denmark has a mandate for maladministration with a specific focus on ATI. In 2016, the Parliamentary Ombudsman undertook an internal investigation in relation to the Access to Public Administration Files Act and how it was interpreted and used by ministries to foster greater openness.
Percentage of countries that provided data in the OECD Survey on Open Government
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, in OECD (2022[29]), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
Promoting inter-institutional co‑ordination
As evidenced by the institutional framework highlighted above, a variety of actors have a mandate to monitor and promote the ATI Law and a culture of transparency in Jordan from perspectives beyond the Information Council. The NCHR must monitor compliance with ATI in its dimension as a fundamental right as the underpinning of other civic freedoms; JIACC must promote it and monitor its enforcement from the standpoint of integrity compliance (see section on monitoring and evaluation of compliance); and MoPIC’s Open Government Unit can promote actions towards its enforcement from an open government perspective.
Collaboration between the Information Council and JIACC is key to ensuring that transparency is a cross-national effort. Such collaboration has the potential to bring ATI to the forefront of policy priorities, given the authority and strength of the above-mentioned institutions. However, the Information Council must continue spearheading Jordan’s ATI efforts in line with its legal mandate. Specific technical-level meetings on ATI could also be organised, bringing together all of the key institutions mentioned above, including the NCHR and GCHR, to promote co‑ordination.
Co‑operation between the Information Council and JIACC in the context of the Fifth OGP NAP to create the transparency dimension of the National Integrity Index and the Compliance Matrix (see section on monitoring and evaluation of compliance) has been particularly fruitful and has the potential to strengthen monitoring processes of ATI at the national level. The avenues for interaction established through this period, supported by MoPIC’s Open Government Unit, could be institutionalised into systematic ATI exchanges to avoid the loss of existing links due to personnel changes.
Adopting a whole-of-government approach to ATI
Protecting the right to access information for all citizens and stakeholders requires strong commitment and co‑operation across all layers of government and the public administration. This is particularly the case when it comes to transparency, given that each public body is responsible for disclosing its information and responding to requests. In this regard, stronger co‑operation is needed from many public entities, such as by appointing information officers and information committees and reporting to the Information Council on their respective ATI efforts. The need to raise awareness and ownership of this agenda across public administration is discussed below (see section “Reinforcing a culture of transparency in Jordan”). One way to foster increased ownership and co‑ordination could be to develop a strategic plan for ATI at the national level. Box 2.7 highlights Lebanon’s National Action Plan to implement the country’s ATI law.
The government of Lebanon has undertaken a variety of official actions to improve the implementation of the Right to Access to Information Law (Law 28/2017) since its passing in 2017. As part of those efforts, the development of an action plan was designed to enhance co‑ordination between official and non-official efforts and provide local and international support with proper guidance as part of the implementation. The Ministerial Anti-Corruption Committee adopted the plan in 2020.
The action plan proposes ten main actions and their corresponding activities, identifies the parties responsible for their implementation and sets implementation deadlines. Each of these actions is based on a specific challenge identified as a barrier hindering the full implementation of the ATI law. Furthermore, activities under each action are classified as short-term, medium-term or long-term.
Source: OMSAR/UNDP/OECD (2020[56]), National Action Plan to Implement the Right to ATI Law, https://www.undp.org/lebanon/publications/national-action-plan-implement-right-access-information-law.
Strengthening capacities of information officers and committees across the administration
The breadth of public administration entails developing a network of specialised ATI officers that implement ATI procedures in their respective institutions and across the public sector. Public institutions often struggle with ATI obligations due to a lack of a dedicated office or official monitoring of the law’s implementation. To overcome this obstacle, several ATI laws currently require the establishment of an information office or officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal framework. These officers are generally appointed to guarantee both proactive and reactive disclosure of information, including but not limited to consolidating proactively disclosed information, responding to information requests, redistributing misallocated or non-allocated requests among other public bodies, and supporting colleagues in responding to requests. Fifty percent of OECD member country respondents to the 2020 Open Government Survey and Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia stipulate the establishment of this office/r in their ATI law. Other countries, despite not including such provisions in the law, have established similar positions in practice (OECD, 2022[29]). In line with these practices, Jordan has enshrined the need to appoint ATI officers in the amended ATI Law (Article 9) and Classification Committees in the ATI protocols. Box 2.8 provides an example of the co‑ordination mechanism that exists in Morocco to encourage collaboration among all information officers in the administration.
Responsibilities of ATI officers in Jordan are defined in Article 9 of the amended ATI Law, which foresees the appointment of such officers in each institution with the responsibility of receiving and following up on ATI requests, giving notice of receipt to the applicant, answering or rejecting the request and facilitating the requests for people with disabilities, illiterate citizens and the elderly.
In the Moroccan central government, an inter-ministerial network of information officers in charge of ATI in their respective institutions was created by Circular no. 05/2020 of 17 June 2020 and placed under the aegis of the Ministry for Digital Transformation and Administrative Reform (MTNRA). It has been set up to facilitate exchange, consultation, awareness raising and training on the new measures taken and the improvements made to implement the right of ATI.
To strengthen the effectiveness of this network, in March 2023, the MTNRA launched the ReDAI platform (redai.chafafiya.ma), which is a virtual space for the exchange of ideas, experience and expertise between network members, thus helping the institutionalisation of communication within the network with a view to co‑ordination. The platform aims to promote the dissemination of good practices relating to the implementation of the right of ATI., identify and collectively propose solutions to problems relating to the organisation of information and the management of requests, share developments, innovations and news at the national and international levels in the field of the right of ATI and finally participate in the reinforcement of the capacities of the members of the network.
Source: MTNRA (n.d.[57]), Circular no. 05/2020 of 17 June 2020, http://redai.chafafiya.ma/redai/javax.faces.resource/files/Circulaire_DAI_05_2020.pdf.
The Enforcement Procedures for ATI Protocol further specifies that ATI officers are responsible for: providing the request form for accessing information in print and electronic form and providing confirmation of receipt of requests to applicants; following up on information requests with those concerned, taking measures to respond to requests, and adhering to the announced time period; preparing an information register and reports related to the subject and providing the Information Council with an annual report on information requests; participating in classifying information in co‑operation with the Information Classification Committee in their institution; and educating public staff and employees about the enforcement procedures for the right to ATI. Until 2022, 47 public institutions that responded to the prime minister’s circular appointed an information officer (38%) and 17 had an assistant information officer (13%). These figures highlight room for further implementation and improvement by appointing such officers and committees across the remaining entities.
There is no job description or path to promotion for information officers in the Civil Service Regulation. A key hurdle is that public servants perform the numerous duties of information officer/co‑ordinator in addition to their original job (there are no dedicated public employees who work only as information officers, nor do these employees receive additional compensation for this task). This may cause ATI officers to favour their other tasks or become overburdened depending on the number of requests the institution receives. In public entities where the volume of requests is high, dedicated ATI staff could be hired or additional incentives for ATI officers provided, whether economic or in the form of other benefits, including promotions, recognition, etc.
In addition to information officers, Article 5 of the Information Classification Protocol states that a committee7 should be formed in each public institution to ensure implementation of ATI law, build capacities of public officials, submit recommendations to senior management about how to increase compliance with the ATI Law and follow up on the classification of information within the institution. Information officers are part of such committees. However, in 2022, only 36 public institutions that responded to the circular (29% of the total) reported having an information classification committee, which shows room for improvement.
Building a strong network of information officers and committees across the administration in Jordan would significantly strengthen the implementation of its ATI framework, bridging the gap between regulations and practice. Based on interviews during the OECD fact-finding mission, the limited uptake currently observed across the public sector is probably due to several interconnected factors that include a lack of awareness of the need to appoint an ATI officer and/or lack of awareness of the potential benefits of ATI, and/or lack of capacities and resources for operational implementation. Efforts to raise awareness in these institutions and strengthen their capacities for ATI would go a long way to improve implementation of the amended ATI Law, with a special focus on institutions that receive the highest volumes of requests.
Information management
Article 14 of the former ATI Law stated that public bodies should index, organise and classify information in their possession. However, as mentioned above, Jordan’s Fourth OGP NAP acknowledged that governmental institutions lacked a clear and uniform system for classifying and managing information (OGP, 2018[18]). As such, one of the fundamental milestones of Commitment no. 5 of the previous OGP NAP was to build a unified system for classifying and managing governmental information while considering the differences between governmental institutions. The Protocols on Classification of Information and Documents and Files Management and Indexing aimed to fill this gap. Furthermore, the amended Article 14 in the new 2024 ATI Law establishes that such a system will be formalised through a bylaw developed for this purpose, which would be convenient to unify the relevant provisions from the protocols in one legal document. While these are steps in the right direction, the implementation across the public administration remains challenging. Many public officials are not aware of the existence of this scheme and have not classified their information accordingly. The Department of the National Library has trained hundreds of officials on the content of the three protocols, and efforts in this regard should be continued, especially once the new bylaws are in place.
Monitoring and evaluation of compliance with ATI law
In line with the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[40]), open government initiatives should be monitored and evaluated to learn lessons from their application and improve them over time. As such, it is necessary to: identify institutional actors in charge of collecting and disseminating up-to-date and reliable information and data in an open format; develop comparable indicators to measure processes, outputs, outcomes and impact in collaboration with stakeholders; and foster a culture of monitoring, evaluation and learning among public officials by increasing their capacity to regularly conduct exercises for these purposes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.
The annual report of the Information Council
In Jordan, monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the ATI Law is entrusted to the Information Council, which submits a report to the Prime Ministry every year. The report, in turn, is prepared by the Information Commissioner, who presents it to the Information Council. The amended ATI Law includes a new obligation to submit the report to parliament, which can be beneficial in promoting legislative improvements to the 2024 ATI Law as needed. To date, these reports have not been systematically published. Given the related obligations in the amended ATI Law, Jordan could consider this an immediate step in order to strengthen the usefulness of these reports for public officials and the public.
One additional challenge concerning the reports is the lack of enforcement ability by the Information Council or Commissioner. Once deficiencies are detected in the implementation of the ATI Law in some institutions, the council does not have the power to sanction or enforce any actions in favour of ATI. As mentioned, Jordan could consider strengthening the binding power of Information Council resolutions and recommendations.
The annual reports include information concerning Information Council meetings, complaints submitted to the council, participation by council members in conferences and seminars, the institutionalisation of the enforcement measures of the 2024 ATI Law, and ongoing challenges, among others. To compile this report, the Department of the National Library collects information from all of the public institutions to which the ATI Law applies, requesting the institutions share the following information:
name and number of information officers
number of in-person requests submitted
number of online requests submitted
number of ATI requests accepted (information was provided)
number of ATI requests denied (information was not provided)
status of information classification
status of proactive disclosure
challenges
lessons learned
directions and plans.
In principle, public institutions should be ready to provide the necessary information to the Information Council/ Information Commissioner, given that the Protocol on Enforcement Procedures requires each public entity to develop clear quantitative and qualitative performance indicators linked to mechanisms for enforcing the right to access information and conduct the related data collection. However, whether these indicators are being developed in practice in any public institution is unclear. As such, Jordanian institutions could consider taking decisive action to develop these indicators.
A fundamental challenge highlighted by the Information Commissioner is the limited level of responses that they ordinarily receive. While, as underscored in Figure 2.9, the amount of reporting entities has steadily increased since 2012, total responses remain low, with only 55 out of 124 public institutions responding in 2022 and 58 in 2021. It remains to be seen whether PMO Circular no. 19/2021, which requires each public institution to submit a report to the Information Council regarding the implementation of ATI Law within the entity, will significantly impact the response rates.
Source: Data provided by the Information Council, 2023.
These findings contrast, for instance, with the fact that all 100 institutions targeted by JIACC for the Compliance Matrix (see below) replied to the questionnaires (even though not all of them replied to the transparency section). To address this, Jordan could consider raising awareness of public institutions, fostering a whole-of-government approach to ATI so that each institution feels compelled to contribute to ATI efforts, and raising the profile and strength of the Information Council.
The Integrity Compliance Matrix
Also prompted by commitment no. 5 made under the Fourth OGP NAP, JIACC has developed a Compliance Matrix that feeds into the National Integrity Index (NII). The development of the Matrix was carried out under the fourth milestone of the commitment, “Monitoring the compliance of public administration institutions with the classification of information by conducting an evaluation of relevant governmental institutions, issuing a report, then circulating and publishing it, as a prelude to an annual evaluation process that seeks to promote the practices and culture of access to information”. The Compliance Matrix, which feeds into the NII, evaluates the compliance of public administration institutions with national integrity standards on five dimensions, one of which is transparency. In cooperation with the Department of National Library and a number of CSOs and private entities, a questionnaire was developed in this context related to public sector institutions’ compliance with the implementation of ATI Law. The results of the first edition of the index, launched in 2023 in cooperation with Rased, constituted the opportunity to present the objectives of the NII and announce the names of top-scoring entities from five assessed sectors: ministries, departments and institutions, municipalities, universities and hospitals. The results of the NII were based on a number of sources, including the integrity questionnaire, through which a survey gathered opinions of 3,597 employees regarding their assessment of the extent to which national integrity standards were being applied in their institutions.
Based on the information gathered during OECD interviews and a review of the questionnaire itself, there is an overlap between the information that JIACC will periodically collect for its Compliance Matrix and the information requested annually by the Information Council to all institutions in line with Prime Minister’s Circular no. 19/2021. Based on the information collected through stakeholder interviews, the response rates to JIACC’s questionnaire were higher (comprising almost all the surveyed public institutions) compared to an approximately 50% response rate for the Information Council. Collaboration between the Information Council and JIACC already exists, with JIACC sharing the data collected with the Council about classification procedures, lists that clarify classification of information, number of requests received by each institution and number of approved and rejected requests. Building on this co-operation, joint Information Council and JIACC requests for this information could be co‑ordinated, as both council and committee should have access to the information and use it for their reporting purposes, for internal control and compliance on the side of JIACC and broader ATI policy purposes on the side of the Information Council.
User satisfaction
One additional way that Jordan is aiming to build its compliance system is by measuring service recipient satisfaction. According to the Protocol on Enforcement Measures, a questionnaire should be sent to service recipients of ATI requests to measure/assess their satisfaction with the working procedures and the quality of services according to the form approved by the department. The annual report will include the results and measurements of satisfaction indicators. This tool has the potential to yield great insights for public institutions to improve their practices and make them more responsive to user needs. However, this is not currently implemented in practice according to interviews during the OECD fact-finding mission and available data. Collecting these metrics could support Jordan in understanding why there is a perceived lack of transparency on the part of some users, although request approval rates have remained high. Box 2.9 provides an example of how user satisfaction surveys are used in Brazil to foster more responsive ATI services.
Brazil, through its one-stop-shop portal fala.BR maintains a system for monitoring and tracking user satisfaction with ATI requests regarding reactive disclosure. It is an optional survey where the user is asked to rate the understandability of the information provided and if the responses to their requests were satisfactory. The results of the survey are published on the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) website, which is in charge of the transparency agenda. This approach allows stakeholders to use information and data for engaging and monitoring government action and can prompt the CGU to take action in relation to expressed dissatisfaction.
Source: OECD (2022[58]), Open Government Review of Brazil: Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f9009d4-en; CGU (n.d.[59]), ATI Law Panel (Painel Lei de Acesso a Informacao), http://paineis.cgu.gov.br/lai/index.htm.
Capacity building and training of public officials
As mentioned throughout this chapter, despite the advances presented by the three protocols on ATI and other policy measures de jure, adequate implementation remains a widespread challenge. This may largely be due to limited knowledge of public officials on ATI procedures and requirements and limited conviction on the part of officials at all management levels about the benefits of ATI and a culture of transparency. The Department of the National Library has taken the lead on training officials from different institutions on the ATI Law and the three protocols, reaching around 700 officials across public institutions and the army in 10 governorates in 2022-23. Each training course is 45 hours spread over 10 days, with 3 days of theoretical content provided by CSO experts and 7 days of practical training provided by the department’s staff. Continuing these efforts is crucial to building the capacities of public administration to implement the amended ATI Law. Jordan could consider complementing these with the creation of easy-to-use visual guides, focused workshops or shorter versions of the courses, which could be distributed throughout the administration for those who cannot attend the ten-day training. Furthermore, “train the trainers” sessions could also be considered, that is, providing training to officials that can, in turn, bring this knowledge to officials in their institutions. Lastly, the training efforts currently led by the Department of the National Library could be jointly organised with the IPA to draw on its extensive resources and expertise and ensure coherence with its ongoing capacity-building services for civil servants. Box 2.10 provides an example of a digital training platform implemented in Chile to train citizens, CSOs and public officials in the field of ATI.
There is also the possibility that implementing ATI requests is a low priority for officials in the context of their daily tasks. While this may partly be explained by the lack of sanctions for non-compliance, some interviewees pointed to a broader issue: public officials do not always recognise the value of sharing information with citizens and stakeholders in the first place. In this regard, all ATI training could be prefaced by a strategic overview of the importance and benefits of ATI as a fundamental right to achieve Jordan’s broader policy goals and build citizen trust.
The Chilean Transparency Council has developed a portal with different pedagogical resources such as animated capsules, informative videos and e-learning courses that allow users to certify their knowledge in the areas of transparency and ATI. It targets citizens, CSOs and public officials, and has trained over 92 000 people since its creation in 2011.
The portal provides a training space that includes 28 virtual courses, 50 educational videos, 127 documents and 2 interactive resources to answer questions related to ATI. To develop the materials for citizens, specific methodologies were used to ensure that they were understandable and user-friendly. These resources are accessed freely via the website.
Source: CPLT (n.d.[60]), EducaTransparencia Portal, https://www.educatransparencia.cl/portal/.
A common challenge encountered in interviews and research surrounding transparency in Jordan is the limited trust that both public officials and citizens place in the right to access information. Public officials, in many cases, are not aware of citizens’ rights to ATI or its potential benefits for Jordan’s governance and economic objectives; civil society, journalists and regular citizens have often described mistrust of the possibility of openly requesting information without facing repercussions. Therefore, increased transparency could become the bedrock upon which further trust between the government and its citizens is built and the outcome of an increasingly two-way relationship where more information is openly disclosed and requested.
To a certain extent, the government is already working on setting policies and practices to foster a culture of transparency in public administration. For example, to receive the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence in Government Performance and Transparency (Government of Jordan, 2023[61]), public entities must demonstrate a commitment to implement the guarantees of the amended ATI Law.
Towards the public, promoting awareness among citizens and stakeholders regarding their right to access information is crucial. It is essential that these actors are well-versed in the existence of relevant ATI laws, the procedural aspects of filing requests and the avenues available for appeals. During the past three years, several media have been used in Jordan to communicate with the public about their right to ATI and the amended ATI Law. Communication avenues include the government’s official websites and social media accounts, a stakeholder brochure, press releases, online advertisements, television and radio interviews and dedicated conference
es for public officials and civil society. However, in 2022, according to the Information Council’s annual report, only 17 public institutions that responded to the circular had an ATI awareness plan for their employees and the public (13% of all institutions), despite the requirement to this effect contained in Article 9 of the Protocol for Enforcement Procedures for ATI. Further efforts in this direction can foster much-needed trust and awareness of the importance of transparency in Jordan.
Morocco
Morocco’s OGP National Action Plan 2018-20 Commitment no. 1 was to “Increase public awareness of the right to information”. Its milestones included:
Developing a communication plan around the law on the right of ATI.
Developing informational content on the right of ATI.
Defining the appropriate media to use to facilitate the flow of information pertaining to the right of ATI.
Producing the means of popularisation based on informational content developed in several languages.
Using the means of popularisation by the communication plan on the most appropriate channels.
Organising meetings at the central, regional and local levels.
To fulfil this commitment, the Ministry of Administration Reform and Civil Service has developed a communication strategy on the right to ATI, including hosting national, regional and local level meetings and using various media and communication channels to promote public awareness. Furthermore, they developed a guide for citizens entitled The Right to Access Information in Morocco and a user-friendly video on how to use the chafafiya.ma platform.
Mexico
The National Institute of Transparency, ATI and Protection of Personal Data in Mexico regularly hosts workshops and engages in outreach with vulnerable groups facing structural barriers that can impede ATI. One outcome of these workshops was the production of guides on digital literacy for senior citizens and women in rural areas.
Uruguay
Uruguay has developed several awareness-raising campaigns for youth, for instance “We want to know” in 2017. It has also created an Action Plan for the Right to Access Information with a Gender-sensitive Approach (2021) and awareness-raising programmes on gender and ATI. Furthermore, it developed a general guide for requesters to foster knowledge of the right to access information, the Guía didáctica sobre el Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública (Didactic Guide on the Right of Access to Public Information).
Sources: Government of Morocco (n.d.[62]), “Le droit d’accès à l’information Guide relatif à la loi no 31.13”, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2012-06-14/103471-46036825.pdf; OGP (n.d.[63]), Morocco: ATI Awareness Raising (MO0001), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/morocco/commitments/MO0001/; Government of Uruguay (2017[64]), “Queremos Saber [We want to know]”, https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/comunicacion/campanas/queremos-saber; Government of Uruguay (n.d.[65]), “Plan de Acción del Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública con enfoque de género [Action Plan for ATI with gender focus]”,. https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/politicas-y-gestion/plan-accion-del-derecho-acceso-informacion-publica-enfoque-genero; Government of Uruguay (2021[66]), Guía didáctica sobre el Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública [Didactic Guide on the Right of Access to Public Information], https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/comunicacion/publicaciones/guia-didactica-sobre-derecho-acceso-informacion-publica/guia-didactica; INAI (n.d.[67]), What Public Information Do You Need?, National Institute of Transparency, ATI and Protection of Personal Data, Mexico, https://home.inai.org.mx accessed on 20 September 2024.
Jordan has underscored its commitment to building a stronger ATI ecosystem as part of its journey towards a more modern, transparent and accountable state. Through the recently amended ATI Law, including transparency as a foundational principle and an objective of the Roadmap and its international commitments pledged under the United Nations and the OGP, Jordan can leverage this opportunity to develop a culture of transparency in public administration and the eyes of its citizens.
Throughout this chapter, areas of opportunity for growth have been explored. Jordan’s Information Council, the leading body implementing, supervising and monitoring the ATI Law, would benefit from a stronger mandate and reinforced capacities to carry out its duties. At the same time, a more comprehensive legal framework that integrates the content of the three ATI protocols into bylaws would ensure a sound and long-lasting basis for this right in line with international good practices. Developing digital access tools, such as an information one-stop shop within Jordan’s e-participation platform, would promote a modern and inclusive approach to ATI. Finally, continued efforts to raise awareness and trust in the right to access information among public servants, citizens, journalists, academics and CSOs would contribute to a whole-of-society understanding of ATI.
These recommendations are outlined below, suggesting key steps to be considered by the Information Council, MoPIC, JIACC, MoDEE, the NCHR, PMO and GBD. Despite the leadership exercised by these entities, effective implementation of these recommendations will require closer inter-institutional co‑operation, a whole-of-government approach mainstreamed across all public entities to which the ATI Law applies, as well as support from the legislative and judicial branches of power within their respective competencies. Some are geared towards the short term and can contribute quick wins, while others, such as modifying legal frameworks, can be considered long-term suggestions.
Leverage the momentum of the amended ATI Law to achieve its full implementation and continue to strengthen the legal framework for ATI
In order to continue ongoing efforts to strengthen the legal ATI framework and further align it with international best practices, consideration could be given to the following:
Enshrining the right to access information at the highest level to embed it with longevity and firm grounding as a fundamental right.
Unifying the content of the three ATI protocols into the amended ATI Law’s bylaws, ensuring they are sufficiently detailed, coherent and in line with international good practices.
In the medium to longer term, considering further amending the ATI Law and, if possible, introducing new aspects in the new ATI Law’s bylaws in line with international standards, with a particular focus on the following:
Enhancing the institutional framework for the implementation of ATI, such as by creating a dedicated department or institution for this purpose.
Clarifying and limiting the extent of exceptions, applying an open-by-default approach and positive or neutral administrative silence.
Establishing sanctions for public institutions and officials who systematically fail to uphold the ATI Law and an exemption from penalties for officials who disclose information in good faith in accordance with the law.
Strengthening the implementation of proactive disclosure of information
Leveraging its inclusion in the amended ATI Law, all public entities led by the Information Council could make efforts to increase its degree of implementation, in particular:
Strengthening proactive disclosure in practice, raising the percentage of institutions that actively disclose (currently about one-third).
Considering developing a one-stop shop to facilitate the accessibility of information, prioritising the disclosure of the most relevant and recent information first.
Continuing efforts to populate the future open data portal in terms of quantity and quality, and leveraging its launch to raise awareness among public officials and citizens.
Considering conducting participatory budgeting initiatives at the national level with stronger consultation with citizens on budget laws at all four stages of budget law development.
Improve inclusiveness of reactive disclosure of information and data
To strengthen the inclusiveness and accessibility of ATI requests, Jordan could consider measures to simplify and streamline this process across public entities, in particular:
Building on the high approval rates already in place, prioritising ATI efforts in the institutions that receive the highest numbers of requests first to achieve a quick improvement.
Considering reducing the amount of mandatory information required to file a request and removing or clarifying the need for a motive or purpose.
Building on the amended ATI Law, further implementing inclusiveness initiatives for vulnerable and marginalised populations.
Addressing the low number of appeals by facilitating the processes and raising trust in their effectiveness among citizens.
Strengthen ATI oversight capacities for a more effective implementation
Jordan could consider strengthening its institutional framework, including the mandate, resources and capacities of the Information Council, to implement the right to access information. In particular, Jordan could:
Strengthen the strategic approach of the Information Council to lead an ambitious agenda on ATI in the country.
Provide the Information Council with sufficient human and financial resources to enable the adequate enforcement, monitoring and promotion of the amended ATI Law.
Ensure the appointment of information officers and committees in all public entities, establishing stronger incentives for undertaking such roles.
Join reporting request efforts between the Information Council and JIACC to avoid requesting the same information twice, providing both institutions with access to the data.
Continue efforts towards capacity building and training of public officials on ATI.
Implement user satisfaction measurement in practice to address concerns from the perspectives of requestors.
Foster increased clarity of roles, interinstitutional co‑ordination and ownership for ATI
To promote stronger interinstitutional co‑ordination and alignment among the key public entities working on ATI, Jordan could consider the following:
Continuing fruitful co‑operation measures among the Information Council, JIACC, MoPIC and the NCHR, considering the organisation of technical-level co‑ordination meetings.
Establishing a stronger link between the Information Council and the GCHR to ensure efforts surrounding ATI are aligned.
Fostering increased co‑operation on the issue of budget transparency across the relevant entities.
Adopting a whole-of-government approach that ensures all public entities see transparency as a common objective, encouraging their compliance and reporting on ATI, including through a national strategy or action plan for ATI.
Continuing efforts to raise awareness and trust on the importance and benefits of the ATI law for public officials and citizens.
References
[50] Article 19 (2016), The Public’s Right to Know: Principles on Right to Information Legislation, https://www.article19.org/data/files/RTI_Principles_Updated_EN.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2020).
[6] Berliner, D. (2012), “Institutionalizing transparency: The global spread of freedom of information in law and practice”, University of Washington, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/21770.
[12] Caetano, J. and A. Caleiro (2009), “Is there a relationship between transparency in economic and political systems and foreign direct investment flows?”, IUP Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. VIII/2, pp. 45-58.
[35] Center for Law and Democracy (2023), Global Right to Information Rating, https://www.rti-rating.org.
[36] Centre for Law and Democracy (n.d.), By Country - Global RTI Rating, https://www.rti-rating.org/country-data/ (accessed on 15 November 2021).
[59] CGU (n.d.), Painel Lei de Acesso a Informacao (ATI Law Panel), Office of the Comptroller General, Brazil, http://paineis.cgu.gov.br/lai/index.htm.
[13] Cicatiello, L. et al. (2021), “Assessing the impact of fiscal transparency on FDI inflows”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 73, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100892.
[14] Cimpoeru, M. and V. Cimpoeru (2015), “Budgetary transparency – An improving factor for corruption control and economic performance”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 27, pp. 579-586, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01036-9.
[44] Council of Ministers (2019), Instructions for Publishing Open Government Data on the Open Government Data Platform, Council of Ministers of Jordan, https://portal.jordan.gov.jo/Instruction_en.pdf.
[43] Council of Ministers (2017), Open Government Data Policy, Council of Ministers of Jordan, https://portal.jordan.gov.jo/OGD-Policy_en.pdf.
[60] CPLT (n.d.), EducaTransparencia Portal, Chilean Transparency Council, https://www.educatransparencia.cl/portal/.
[38] Darbishire, H. (2010), “Proactive transparency: The future of the right to information?”, Access to Information Program, http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/100521468339595607/pdf/565980WP0Box351roactiveTransparency.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2020).
[16] Forssbaeck, J. (2021), “Transparency and economic development”, in Berger, S. et al. (eds.), Cultures of Transparency (1st ed.), Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429326936.
[30] Government of Belgium (2021), The Belgian Constitution (English translation), https://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/publications/constitution/GrondwetUK.pdf.
[54] Government of Brazil (n.d.), Controladoria-Geral da União – Pacto Brasil, https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br.
[41] Government of Brazil (n.d.), Fala.BR - Plataforma Integrada de Ouvidoria e Acesso à Informação, https://falabr.cgu.gov.br/publico/Manifestacao/SelecionarTipoManifestacao.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f.
[31] Government of Colombia (n.d.), Political Constitution 1 of 1991, https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=4125.
[33] Government of Egypt (n.d.), 2014 Constitution, English translation by International IDEA, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2014.
[61] Government of Jordan (2023), King Abdullah II Award for Excellence in Government Performance and Transparency, https://mop.gov.jo/En/Pages/King_Abdullah_II_Award.
[4] Government of Jordan (2022), Economic Modernization Vision, http://www.jordanvision.jo/.
[2] Government of Jordan (2022), Public Sector Modernization: The Roadmap, https://govreform.jo/EBV4.0/Root_Storage/EN/EB_Info_Page/Road_map.pdf.
[24] Government of Jordan (2016), Comprehensive National Plan for Human Rights (for the years 2016-2025), https://andp.unescwa.org/plans/1155.
[42] Government of Morocco (2024), Chafafiya.ma Information Portal, http://www.chafafiya.ma/.
[32] Government of Morocco (2011), The Constitution, http://www.sgg.gov.ma/Portals/0/constitution/constitution_2011_Fr.pdf.
[62] Government of Morocco (n.d.), Le droit d’accès à l’information Guide relatif à la loi no 31.13, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2012-06-14/103471-46036825.pdf.
[34] Government of Tunisia (n.d.), The Constitution, English translation by UNDP reviewed by International IDEA, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014.
[66] Government of Uruguay (2021), Guía didáctica sobre el Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública [Didactic Guide on the Right of Access to Public Information], https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/comunicacion/publicaciones/guia-didactica-sobre-derecho-acceso-informacion-publica/guia-didactica.
[64] Government of Uruguay (2017), “Queremos Saber [We want to know]”, https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/comunicacion/campanas/queremos-saber.
[65] Government of Uruguay (n.d.), “Plan de Acción del Derecho de Acceso a la Información Pública con enfoque de género [Action Plan for ATI with gender focus]”, 2021, https://www.gub.uy/unidad-acceso-informacion-publica/politicas-y-gestion/plan-accion-del-derecho-acceso-informacion-publica-enfoque-genero.
[8] Hollyer, J., B. Rosendorff and J. Vreeland (2011), “Democracy and transparency”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 73/4, pp. 1191–1205.
[47] IMF (2018), Fiscal Transparency, Borrowing Costs, and Foreign Holdings of Sovereign Debt, International Monetary Fund.
[49] IMF et al. (2023), Strengthening Budget Transparency in the MENA Region, https://internationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Regional-Note-10-Budget-TransparencyIMF-METAC-IBP-UNDP.pdf.
[53] INAI (n.d.), What is the INAI?, Mexican Federal Institute for Access to Public Information and Data Protection, https://home.inai.org.mx/?page_id=1626.
[67] INAI (n.d.), What Public Information Do You Need?, Mexican Federal Institute for Access to Public Information and Data Protectiona, Mexico, https://home.inai.org.mx.
[52] IPA (n.d.), About the Institute, Institute of Public Administration, https://ipa.gov.jo/En/Pages/About_the_Institute.
[15] Law, S. et al. (2022), “Non-linearity and the threshold effect of transparency on economic growth: Evidence from developing countries”, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Vol. 25/4, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2022.21.
[7] Malesky, E., N. McCulloch and N. Nhat (2015), “The impact of governance and transparency on firm investment in Vietnam”, Economics of Transition, Vol. 23/4, pp. 677-715, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12068.
[45] MoDEE (2021), The National Digital Transformation Strategy & Implementation Plan, Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship, https://www.modee.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/en/eb_list_page/dts-2021-eng.pdf.
[3] MoPIC (2022), Jordan Voluntary National Review 2022, Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/vnrs/2022/VNR%202022%20Jordan%20Report.pdf.
[57] MTNRA (n.d.), Circular no. 05/2020 of 17 June 2020, Ministry for Digital Transformation and Administrative Reform, Morocco, http://redai.chafafiya.ma/redai/javax.faces.resource/files/Circulaire_DAI_05_2020.pdf.
[51] OAS (2020), Inter-American Model Law on 2.0 on Access to Public Information, Organization of American States, http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/publication_Inter-American_Model_Law_2_0_on_Access_to_Public_Information.pdf.
[46] OECD (2024), Budget Transparency, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/best-practices-budget-transparency.htm.
[68] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.
[58] OECD (2022), Open Government Review of Brazil : Towards an Integrated Open Government Agenda, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f9009d4-en.
[29] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[40] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[39] OECD (2016), Open Government the Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[48] OECD (2015), Recommendation of the Council on Budgetary Governance, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0410.
[28] OECD (n.d.), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Egypt, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
[37] Official Gazette (2024), Law Amending the Law Guaranteeing the Right to Access Information 4/2024, Government of Jordan.
[21] Official Gazette (2023), Law no. 17 of 2023 on Cybercrime, Government of Jordan.
[17] Official Gazette (2007), Law no. 47 of 2007 Guaranteeing the Right to Access Information, Government of Jordan.
[19] OGP (2022), Jordan Transitional Results Report 2018-2021, Independent Reporting Mechanism, Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/jordan-transitional-results-report-2018-2021/.
[18] OGP (2018), Jordan 4th National Action Plan 2018-2020, Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/jordan-action-plan-2018-2020/.
[63] OGP (n.d.), Morocco: ATI Awareness Raising (MO0001), Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/morocco/commitments/MO0001/.
[56] OMSAR/UNDP/OECD (2020), National Action Plan to Implement the Right to ATI Law, Office of Minister of State for Administrative Reform of Lebanon, United Nations Development Programme and OECD, https://www.undp.org/lebanon/publications/national-action-plan-implement-right-access-information-law.
[10] Payne, Z. and W. Drabek (2022), “The impact of transparency on foreign direct investment”, Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 17/4, pp. 777-810, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23000835.
[22] Press Release, King Abdullah (2023), King says Jordan committed to political, media pluralism; directs government to review access to information bill, https://kingabdullah.jo/en/news/king-says-jordan-committed-political-media-pluralism-directs-government-review-access.
[55] The Ombudsman (n.d.), About the Ombudsman, https://www.en.ombudsmanden.dk/about-the-ombudsman.
[25] UN (2005), United Nations Convention Against Corruption, United Nations General Assembly, https://www.refworld.org/docid/4374b9524.html.
[23] UN (1966), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Treaty Series, United Nations General Assembly, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html.
[26] UN (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19, United Nations General Assembly, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
[1] UNESCO (2023), Access to Information Laws, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, https://en.unesco.org/themes/access-information-laws (accessed on 15 November 2021).
[27] UNESCO (2009), Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000180312.
[5] UNESCO Jordan (2017), Training Programme on the Right to Information for Jordanian Information Officers: Participants’ Manual, https://www.law-democracy.org/live/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Manual.Jordan-Officials.rev_.2017.pdf.
[20] WJP (2023), WJP Rule of Law Index - Open Government Dimension, World Justice Project, https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/global/2023/Open%20Government/.
[9] WTO (2002), “The impact of transparency on foreign direct investment”, Journal of Economic Integration, Vol. 17/4, pp. 777-810, https://www.e-jei.org/upload/148HEKXL3092R4YH.pdf.
[11] Zhao, J., S. Kim and J. Du (2003), “The impact of corruption and transparency on foreign direct investment: An empirical analysis”, MIR: Management International Review, Vol. 43/1, pp. 41-62, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40835633.
← 1. According to stakeholder interviews, the Jordan Transparency Center, the Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, civil society coalition HIMAM, the Journalists Association and the Economic and Social Council were consulted.
← 2. For resources and guidance on conducting participatory budgeting efforts, see OECD (2022[68]).
← 3. Based on OECD team research conducted in October 2023.
← 4. In accordance with Article 13 of the amended ATI Law, the following information cannot be disclosed: documents obtained from another country and agreed to remain confidential between the two parties; information that may cause harm to national defence, state security or foreign policy; information that includes analysis, recommendations, proposals or consultations to be submitted to the Official in Charge before a decision is made in their concern, including correspondences and information exchanged between different governmental departments regarding it; personal information and files related to educational or medical persons, professional records, bank accounts and transfers and professional confidentialities or other data that are prohibited from being disclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Law; correspondence of personal or confidential nature, whether in the form of post, cable, phone call or any other technological means, with governmental departments and the replies thereto; information whose disclosure will affect negotiations between the kingdom and any other country or body; investigations made by the public prosecution, judicial police or security authorities concerning any crime or lawsuit within their jurisdiction, as well as investigations conducted by the competent authorities for unveiling financial, customs or banking violations, unless the competent authority permits the disclosure thereof; and information of commercial, industrial, financial or economic nature, information on scientific bids or researches or technology, whose disclosure will lead to the violation of its copyright, intellectual property rights or fair or lawful competition or to illegal profit or loss for any person.
← 5. According to the information provided by the administrative courts in OECD interviews, 2023.
← 7. The committee should be permanent and formed of no fewer than five members and no more than seven members, under the leadership of the secretary- or director-general of the entity, whose members include a specialised employee for receiving requests for information (called the information co‑ordinator), a representative of the legal affairs unit/directorate, a representative of the administrative affairs unit/directorate, a representative of the information technology unit/directorate, and a representative of the institutional development unit/directorate, taking into account the organisational structure of the department, in addition to any person with competency appointed by the secretary- or director-general of the department. They should meet at least every three months, or as often as necessary.