Mexican legislation on transparency is recognized in the world as avant-garde, since it places at the center the right of access of citizens to public information. The General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information (LGTAIP) establishes the principle of maximum publicity, under which obliged subjects are responsible for publishing complete, timely and accessible information regarding their powers, functions and competencies (1).
In the management of natural resources, the application of the principle of maximum publicity is of great importance in making available to any interested social actor the policy applied to ensure the sustainability of resources such as water, forests and fishing resources. Problems such as hoarding resources and permits, poorly distributed support, as well as inefficient inspection and surveillance strategies could be identified and reviewed with complete, timely and accessible information in an exercise of accountability between citizens and authorities (2).
There is still a long way to go before implementing a culture of transparency that will lead us to a virtuous dynamic where citizens and government sit together to discuss the best ways to solve the problems that afflict commonly used resources such as those mentioned here.
The opening of information to public scrutiny seems to be difficult for some bodies responsible for managing natural resources to assimilate. A review of the INAI database on responses to requests for information in 2019 reveals that ASEA, Conafor, Conagua, Conapesca, Profepa and Semarnat comply, most of the time, with delivering the information within the twenty working days established according to the official INAI calendar, but when these twenty working days sometimes turn into more than 150 calendar days, the appropriateness of its delivery is in question (3).
On the other hand, only some instances deliver the information in accordance with the means requested by the user; while others “too” often deny the information because it is non-existent, reserved or confidential, or request additional information, extending the response time as much as possible.
Thus, there are instances such as Conafor and Inapesca that deliver information in the requested medium on most occasions; at the same time, there are instances such as ASEA, Conagua and Conapesca that, in 44%, 26.6% and 26.5% of the time, respectively, do not provide the information, arguing that it is non-existent, reserved or confidential information; and the case of Profepa, which, in response to a third of the requests for public information made to it, responds by requesting additional information (3).
For comprehensive management of natural resources, access to information must be guaranteed. A step in this direction would be achieved with comprehensive digital information, which accounts for the management carried out with disaggregated, georeferenced, free, timely and comparable data of all the legal instruments that regulate this sector. Of course, information alone does not solve a complex problem like this, but it does provide the basis for accountability, the planning and implementation of public policies, the participation of communities and society as a whole, and access to justice.
* Coordinator of Natural Cause Policy Analysis and Evaluation
** Director of CartoCrítica
References:
(1) General Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information. Official Gazette of the Federation. Mexico, May 4, 2015.
(2) Virtual platforms such as Field Grants (http://subsidiosalcampo.org.mx/) and Fishing Data (https://pescandodatos.org/) reveal this type of problem based on public information.
(3) National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI). 2020. Database of requests for information made to Federal Public Administration agencies through the Infomex Federal Government system. Retrieved February 19, 2020. Available at: https://infomex.org.mx/gobiernofederal/homeOpenData.action
Comentarios (0)