Support Us

You are browsing the archive for Open Government Data.

What’s the point of open data?

Martin Tisne - September 17, 2013 in Access to Information, Open Data, Open Government Data

I’ve been puzzling for a while how the open data community can help the many great groups that have been fighting for transparency of key money flows for the past decade and more. I think one answer may be that open data helps us go beyond simply making information available. If done well, it can help us make it accessible and relevant to people, which has been the holy grail for transparency advocates for a long time.

The transparency community has focused too much on just getting information out there (making information available). But what’s the point of having information available if it’s not accessible? What’s the use of public reports that are only nominally ‘public’ because they languish in filing cabinets or ‘PDF deserts’ hidden within an obscure website?

If we can get this information more accessible, we can then work to increase participation and help people use it. This for me is what open data people are talking about when they talk about open formats. Machine readability and open formats matter because they are tools to increase access. I’ve seen too many techies talk about ‘open formats’ and activists’ eyes glaze over. But I think we’re both talking about the same thing we hold dear: improving access to vital data for all.

Likewise, it’s the connections between the datasets that are powerful and interesting. You may not care so much to know where most people under 15 years old live in your country, but if you’re told that those that live close to a nuclear waste disposal site happen to have the highest cancer rates, then it becomes seriously relevant. Same as above, techies often talk about technical data standards and get quizzical/skeptical – at best – looks in exchange. But technical data standards are the fuel that allows policy wonks to compare datasets, which creates relevant data. Connecting the dots makes it policy relevant – without data, you can’t make policy.

[availability of data] => [accessibility of data] => [comparability of data]

[availability of data] => [open formats] => [data standards]

Follow the Money groups do amazing work: extractives’ transparency advocates campaigning for vital releases of information on oil, gas, mining revenues into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Groups looking at curbing illicit flows of funds out of desperately poor countries via shell companies and phantom firms. Activists who scrutinize budgets, everything from big ticket national budget allocations, all the way down to very local issues like your local school spending on basic reading materials. And many more.

Together, these groups share one big thing in common – they are all seeking to follow the money. In other words, they are all trying to understand how money either gets in to government coffers, or how it fails to get there, and then how and whether it is spent for the good of the many, rather than the few lining their pockets.

To succeed, we all need data that’s not only public (e.g. public registries of beneficial ownership) but also accessible (in open formats) and comparable to other money flows.

Let’s work together to make it happen.

The following guest post from Martin Tisné was first published on his personal blog.

If you’re at OKCon 2013 and interested in joining the Open Knowledge Foundation and ONE to follow the money, you can come to our session on this topic at OKCon 2013 in Geneva, on Wednesday 18th September, 10:30-11:30 in Room 8, Floor 2 at the Centre International de Conférences Genève – CICG). Due to limited space, if you’re interested in joining us please email

OKCon 2013 Guest Post: Which bar to raise?

Guest - September 11, 2013 in OKCon, Open Government Data

The following post is by Paul Maassen, who together with Daniel Dietrich and Anders Pedersen will be coordinating the workshop ‘Raising the bar for ambition and quality in OGP: workshop to develop a ‘Civil Society National OGP Review’, to be held on Tuesday 17 September, 14:45 – 16:00 @ Room 5, Floor 3, as part of the Open Data, Government and Governance track at OKCon. Get in touch with them to book your place!

When asked what makes the Open Government Partnership model different I always mention 3 elements: the guaranteed seat at the table for civil society; the concrete, ambitious commitments made, and the independent monitoring of the process and promises.

Two years after the OGP was launched at the UN General Assembly the first set of independent reports are being released. That brings the first cycle for the founding countries to a close. The last 12 months reformers in close to 60 countries have experimented with the OGP process, testing it out as a new tool to deliver change and get more transparency, more accountability and more participation.

Image: Open Development Technology Alliance

Image: Open Development Technology Alliance

Not surprisingly civil society across the globe has been watching OGP closely. Embracing the idea of creating space for reformers, but critically vocal on all three key elements, as well as the criteria to get into the partnership. In ultra short summary: the eligibility threshold is too low with too little criteria; the commitments are not ambitious and the consultations not inclusive and ‘real’ enough. All okay to an extent for the ‘test drive’ of the first action plan cycle, but not for the second round.

The team working on the independent reports (IRM team) have worked hard the last couple of months to get their methodology right, find the best researchers, balance the interest of government and civil society. This week the very first report – on South Africa – will be published and the coming weeks 7 more will follow. Hopefully the reports will bring about a dialogue on key learnings, rather than serve as a simple scorecard to praise or denounce national efforts. Solid thinking and resources have been put into this exercise and the reports should push the reviewed countries in the right direction and create fresh energy.

Read the rest of this entry →

An Open Letter on the UK’s Proposed Lobbying Bill

Jonathan Gray - September 9, 2013 in Access to Information, Featured, Open Data, Open Government Data, Policy

The following is an open letter to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister about the UK’s proposed Lobbying Bill, initiated by the Open Knowledge Foundation and signed by organisations working for greater government transparency and openness in the UK and around the world. A version of the letter was printed in today’s edition of The Independent newspaper.

For more about our position on this topic, you can read our recent blog post on the importance of lobbyist registers. For press enquiries please contact

The Lobbying Bill will be a missed opportunity for government openness unless crucial changes are made

Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Houses of Parliament

Cc: Andrew Lansley CBE MP (Leader of the House of Commons),
Francis Maude MP (Minister for the Cabinet Office),
Chloe Smith MP (Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform),
Graham Allen MP (Chair of Political and Constitutional Reform Committee).

6th September 2013

Dear Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister,

We, the undersigned, strongly urge government to pause and redraft the proposed Lobbying Bill so that it will provide citizens with a genuine opportunity to scrutinise the activities of lobbyists in the UK.

The current version of the lobbyist register would only cover a small fraction of active lobbyists, leaving the public in the dark about the rest of the UK’s £2 billion lobbying industry. It will also not reveal any meaningful information on their activities.

We think a decent lobbyist register – which says who is lobbying whom, what they are lobbying for and how much they are spending – should be an essential part of the UK government’s openness agenda, and a key measure to ensure that lobbying is transparent and effectively regulated.

Crucially it should not just be restricted to consultant lobbyists, but should also include in-house lobbyists, big consultancies who offer a range of services, and other entities which offer lobbying services such as think tanks.

Furthermore we think it is essential the UK’s lobbyist register is published as machine-readable open data so that its contents can be analysed, connected with other information sources, and republished.

The UK has been a pioneer in opening up its public data and has a major opportunity to be a world leader in government openness at the Open Government Partnership Summit in the UK this autumn, following on from its success in putting open data at the top of the agenda at the G8 with the Open Data Charter.

However, if the Lobbying Bill goes ahead as it is without further changes, then it will be a significant missed opportunity for government openness in the UK, and a major blow to the government’s aspiration to be – in the words of the Prime Minister – “the most open and transparent government in the world”.


Open Data Census: Help assess the state of open government data

Christian Villum - September 5, 2013 in Featured, Open Data Census, Open Government Data

Would you like to help track the state of government data? Then now is the time to join the Open Data Census community as one of the Country Editors for your country and help our community-driven push to show governments of the world the state of open data!

The Open Data Census is a tool that assesses the evolution and current state of open data around the world. It is a community-based effort initiated and coordinated by the Open Knowledge Foundation but with participation from many different groups or individuals: Citizens in countries all over the world contribute either by going to the site to submit information about their home country, or by becoming a Country Editor!

Joining the community as a Country Editor for your country

Country Editors are local citizens, and require no special skills – other than curiosity, Internet access and the desire to investigate what government data are open in their country by browsing the web. They volunteer, often in groups, to act as contact person(s) for their country and to coordinate the collection of data from other volunteers in the same area. It’s a position that does not requires a lot of time, but is pivotal to the success of the Census.

We are looking to expand the community of Country Editors, in order to present the Census results at the monumental Open Government Partnership Summit in London on October 30 – to show the world the current state of open government data, as seen by the citizens of the world. The aim is to have a fully expanded, updated and reviewed Open Data Census to present, and a magnificent tool for communities all over the world to use to start discussions with their governments and to drive the open government data agenda forward in their local area.

Take a look at this list over countries which already have Country Editors – if your country is not represented, the Open Data Census could really use your help! (and if your country is already represented, you can still help – each country can easily have more than one Country Editor).

Here is what to if you are interested in joining:

  • Now: Sign up to be a Country Editor for your country.
    To do that send us an email and subscribe to the Open Data Census Discussion List. We will then get back to you with further information.
  • Now: Let us know if you have friends or good contacts in other countries, who might be interested in joining the Country Editor community. Especially in countries in which we do not currently have Country Editors.
  • Soon, starting September 15 – we will invite you to submit your county’s data-sets to the Open Data Census, or see if already submitted sets are fully up to date.
  • Later, starting October 1 – when the data collection has finished – find more reviewers in your country to review the submissions. The more people who review the data, the more reliable it will be in the Census results.

Please get in touch with any questions or comments you may have. We suggest posting them on the Census Discussion List, so that we can all engage around the same ideas, concerns and opportunities. You can also read more about the Country Editor role and check out the Open Data Census FAQ, which may answer your query – or you can get in touch directly with Christian Villum, the coordinator of the Open Data Census.

Note that everyone is invited to subscribe to the discussion list and to engage in the discussions there, even if you are not planning to become a Country Editor.

We’re looking forward to welcome you to the Census community!

The world needs better lobbyist registers – but the UK’s proposed lobbying bill won’t help

Jonathan Gray - September 4, 2013 in Featured, Open Data, Open Government Data, Policy

Lobbyist registers are supposed to enable citizens to find out who is lobbying whom for what, and how much they are spending in the process.

They are supposed to help to safeguard against big money having an unfair influence in politics – ultimately to ensure that political decisions are based on argument, evidence and democratic deliberation, and not bought with cash from the highest bidder.

We think lobbyist registers are an essential part of government transparency, and that every country in the world ought to have one.

Furthermore we think it is essential that lobbyist registers are published as open data so that their contents can be easily analysed, queried, and connected with other information sources.

As we’re increasingly seeing corporations and special interest groups lobbying across borders, we’d like to track how big money is shaping discussion and decisions about issues that matter – from energy and the environment to tax and trade – in countries around the world.

We think that this kind of inquiry is essential for democracies to function.

While the UK is a world leader in opening up its public data, unfortunately the proposed Lobbying Bill in its current form will not deliver the lobbyist register that the UK needs.

Aside from widespread concerns that it will have a “chilling effect on civil society and its freedom of expression”, the bill contains major loopholes and omissions which means that it will not deliver real or meaningful transparency around lobbying in the UK.

Firstly, the bill would only apply to a fraction of the UK’s £2 billion lobbying industry. It would only require disclosures from those whose main business is lobbying. Hence it would not cover companies who have in-house lobbyists, big lobbying consultancies who offer a range of services, and other entities which offer lobbying services such as think tanks, law firms or management consultancies. And for those whose main business is lobbying it only covers those who lobby the highest echelons of government – not special advisers or mid-level civil servants.

Secondly, the bill would require lobbyists to disclose very little information about their activities. Essentially it asks lobbyists for a list of their clients and nothing at all about which issues they lobby on, which departments they target, or how much they are paid.

We at the Open Knowledge Foundation sincerely hope that the proposed bill will be revised to address these and other limitations.

If the bill goes ahead as it is, then it will be a significant missed opportunity for government openness in the UK, and a major blow to the government’s aspiration to be – in the words of the Prime Minister – “the most open and transparent government in the world”.

If you’d like to read more you can take a look at SpinWatch’s analysis. While MPs voted for a second reading last night, there’s still time to ask them to reconsider the bill. If you’re based in the UK you can write to your MP either via SpinWatch’s form or with your own message at WriteToThem.

It is time for Open Services

Guest - September 4, 2013 in Open Government Data

The following guest post is by Guillermo Moncecchi.

In a previous post, we advocated for the generation of a Public Digital Infrastructure (PDI), suggesting that governments should advance in the provision of open digital capabilities, free of restrictions, to do, within the law, whatever we want with them. These capabilities would be built on top of a national physical infrastructure and include data, services, software and knowledge.

A lot has been written in the last couple of years about open data. An large number of advocates and an increasing government commitment (mostly related to transparency, but also approaching infrastructure provisioning) suggest a promising future for open data. Probably, ten years from today, the term “open data” will no longer be used. “Closed government data” will be the main related concern, because public data will be globally open, by default.

On the road to Public Digital Infrastructure development, we propose going one step further from open data. We must move on to Open Government Services.

Bus stop

The Open Government Service definition we are proposing is slightly different from the one of Open Software Service from OKFN. While Open Software Services aim to be the “open source” version of online services, Open Government Services are more the service-version of Open Data: online services for exposing data and performing computation, without access restrictions and verifiable results.

Let us introduce a motivating example. At Montevideo, the bus timetable data is open. You can check, for each bus line, the departure and arrival times at certain checkpoints (the little watches in the following picture). In the software we developed for final users, we additionally estimate the scheduled time for each intermediate bus stop between checkpoints, calculating it using a rule of three simple. If somebody wants to develop a similar system, she should download our open data and implement the interpolation rule. Not too difficult.


But, if you look at the problem from a developer’s point of view, something looks suboptimal. Why do you have to download the data? And, more important, why replicate an algorithm somebody already developed? If we, as the city, published an open service that, given a line and a bus stop, returned the (estimated) scheduled time, it would be much easier to develop an application for the Montevideo’s citizens (something that is, after all, the reason for freeing our data). In fact, this is exactly what is starting to happen. After we based our “A qué hora pasa?” web application on RESTful services (even when we did not even publish its specification), a third-party application started to use them, and we know some others are on the go.

There are some additional features of data that make Open Services not only convenient, but also necessary:

  • Real-time data: this is information delivered immediately after collection. Consider, for example, the Transport for London Live Bus Arrivals. The Open Data approach is not plausible: one of the most important features of these data is its availability right now. In fact, the London transport website includes a “Developers Section” that provides services for checking arrival times.
  • Big data: I take “big data” as the opposite of small data: the amount of data you cannot conveniently store and process on a single high-end laptop or server. Open data is supposed to make things easier for people; if you need a supercomputer to analyze open data, then it is not open anymore. In this case, open services would allow the user to refine her queries and get the data she is interested in. A good example is the huge data section of the National Climatic Data Center; if it wasn’t for their services, data access would be almost impossible.

As you can see, there are already many examples of services on open data. However, we should start thinking not just about services on open data, but directly about open services. Emulating what has been done for Open Data, we suggest the following principles for Open Services:

  • Open Services should be based on open data. Open Services should never substitute Open Data. I repeat, never. They are intended to make things easier, not for preventing access.
  • Open Services should be verifiable. Since Open Services include Open Data and algorithms, we need a way to check results are what we expect, and are not being modified during processing. The most obvious way to comply with this is to publish the algorithms and processes besides the data (in our bus timetable, the interpolation algorithm). But there could be other forms of verifiability: in the real-time bus data, we can simply check if the bus is where the service says, just by going to the real place.
  • Open Services should be open for everybody, with no limitations, except for security reasons. No registration, no justification. Exactly the same principle we applied to open data.
  • Open Services should be accessible through Open Standards, which no entity has exclusive control (*).

Governments are opening our data. Governments are opening our code. Now it is time for opening our code applied to our data. It is time for Open Services.

(*) I am tempted to add: “and using RESTful services!”, but the Semantic Web people would not be happy, and I have friends there.

Guillermo Moncecchi is Head of Development in the IT department of the city of Montevideo. He is also part of the Institute of Computer Science at the Universidad de la República, where he works on Natural Language Processing.

Image credit: bus stop by Vince Alongi. CC-BY

How can open data lead to better data quality?

Jonathan Gray - September 3, 2013 in Featured, Open Data, Open Government Data, Policy, WG Open Government Data

Open data can be freely used by anyone – which means that data users can help to fix, enrich or flag problems with the data, leading to improvements in its quality.

The Open Knowledge Foundation is currently looking to collect the best examples and stories we can find about how open data can lead to better data.

We’re particularly interested in hearing about stories about how open government data has been checked, corrected and enhanced by citizens, civil society groups and others.

So far we have some really great examples – including:

  • Russian open data advocates trawling for errors in over 20 million procurement documents leading to fixes from the Treasury
  • Open Street Map volunteers correcting the locations of 18,000 bus stops in the UK and over 1,800 street names in Denmark
  • Data quality reports from the OpenSpending project leading to rapid improvements in the quality of UK government expenditure data

You can see the full list in progress at:

If you know of any more good examples, please send them our way and we’ll add them to the list.

We hope this will become a powerful piece of evidence that we can use to encourage public bodies and other data publishers to open up.

Edits to OpenStreetMap

Map showing history of edits to OpenStreetMap in London by Mapbox.

This initiative started life on the Open Knowledge Foundation’s open-government mailing list, which we encourage you to join if you are interested in open government data and how it can be used to increase accountability around the world.

Even after earthquakes, we need Open

Guest - August 29, 2013 in Featured Project, OKF Italy, Open Development, Open Government Data

The following guest post is by Chistian Quintili from Open Ricostruzione. Open Ricostruzione is an Italian civic project focused on people engagement after the earthquake which damaged cities of Emilia-Romagna in 2012

Open Ricostruzione is pleased to have a little corner in the OKF network. Our project, in short, is a website to monitor public funding and private donations raised to reconstruct public buildings damaged by the earthquake which hit Emilia Romagna in May 2012.

Emilia Romagna is a region in Northern Italy, which in 2012 experienced a series of devastating earthquakes, measuring up to 6.0 on the richter scale. Up to 45,000 people were made homeless, and 27 lost their lives. The cost of reconstruction so far is estimated at around €350 million, with projects including schools, hospitals, and the restoration of historical cultural sites. We want to make sure that this process is open, transparent and accountable.

The Emilia-Romagna region and the ANCI (the association of all Italian municipalities) gathered the relevant administrative data; and an association working on IT and civic participation, called Open Polis, developed special software for accessing the data in a user-friendly and easy way. You can find raw data, project by project, on a featured website named Sisma2012.

open ricostrizione

But Open Ricostruzione is more than this. Technology isn’t enough to “rebuild” democracy: our focus is on re-building citizens’ skills. Beyond smart cities, we need smart citizens. For this reason, ActionAid is organizing a series of workshops to train civil society activists to monitor reconstruction, providing juridical and data journalism skills with Dataninja (an Italian data journalism network).

Bondeno 29 giugno 2013

Today each of us can contribute to make reconstruction in Emilia and our institutions more accountable, and this is possible just using a mobile phone, a camera and an internet connection. This means we can, and should be, more responsible for and concerned by the rebuilding of a better society, better institutions and better nation.

We have the tools and we want to make it happen.

We’d love to hear from you, and you can follow us @Open_Ric for updates.

Open Ricostruzione is a project designed by Wikitalia and realized by Anci, Ancitel, ActionAid and Openpolis with the technical support of Emilia Romagna Region and the financial support of Cisco Italy

Open Data Privacy

Laura James - August 27, 2013 in Featured, Ideas and musings, Open Data, Open Data and My Data, Open Government Data, Privacy

“yes, the government should open other people’s data”

Traditionally, the Open Knowledge Foundation has worked to open non-personal data – things like publicly-funded research papers, government spending data, and so on. Where individual data was a part of some shared dataset, such as a census, great amounts of thought and effort had gone in to ensuring that individual privacy was protected and that the aggregate data released was a shared, communal asset.

But times change. Increasing amounts of data are collected by governments and corporations, vast quantities of it about individuals (whether or not they realise that it is happening). The risks to privacy through data collection and sharing are probably greater than they have ever been. Data analytics – whether of “big “ or “small” data – has the potential to provide unprecedented insight; however some of that insight may be at the cost of personal privacy, as separate datasets are connected/correlated.

Medical data loss dress

Both open data and big data are hot topics right now, and at such times it is tempting for organisations to get involved in such topics without necessarily thinking through all the issues. The intersection of big data and open data is somewhat worrying, as the temptation to combine the economic benefits of open data with the current growth potential of big data may lead to privacy concerns being disregarded. Privacy International are right to draw attention to this in their recent article on data for development, but of course other domains are affected too.

Today, we’d like to suggest some terms to help the growing discussion about open data and privacy.

Our Data is data with no personal element, and a clear sense of shared ownership. Some examples would be where the buses run in my city, what the government decides to spend my tax money on, how the national census is structured and the aggregate data resulting from it. At the Open Knowledge Foundation, our default position is that our data should be open data – it is a shared asset we can and should all benefit from.

My Data is information about me personally, where I am identified in some way, regardless of who collects it. It should not be made open or public by others without my direct permission – but it should be “open” to me (I should have access to data about me in a useable form, and the right to share it myself, however I wish if I choose to do so).

Transformed Data is information about individuals, where some effort has been made to anonymise or aggregate the data to remove individually identified elements.


We propose that there should be some clear steps which need to be followed to confirm whether transformed data can be published openly as our data. A set of privacy principles for open data, setting out considerations that need to be made, would be a good start. These might include things like consulting key stakeholders including representatives of whatever group(s) the data is about and data privacy experts around how the data is transformed. For some datasets, it may not prove possible to transform them sufficiently such that a reasonable level of privacy can be maintained for citizens; these datasets simply should not be opened up. For others, it may be that further work on transformation is needed to achieve an acceptable standard of privacy before the data is fit to be released openly. Ensuring the risks are considered and managed before data release is essential. If the transformations provide sufficient privacy for the individuals concerned, and the principles have been adhered to, the data can be released as open data.

We note that some of “our data” will have personal elements. For instance, members of parliament have made a positive choice to enter the public sphere, and some information about them is therefore necessarily available to citizens. Data of this type should still be considered against the principles of open data privacy we propose before publication, although the standards compared against may be different given the public interest.

This is part of a series of posts exploring the areas of open data and privacy, which we feel is a very important issue. If you are interested in these matters, or would like to help develop privacy principles for open data, join the working group mailing list. We’d welcome suggestions and thoughts on the mailing list or in the comments below, or talk to us and the Open Rights Group, who we are working with, at the Open Knowledge Conference and other events this autumn.

Beneficial ownership registries should be published as open data

Jonathan Gray - August 21, 2013 in Campaigning, Featured, Open Data, Open Government Data, Policy, Public Money

In the coming months many governments around the world will decide whether databases of who really owns and controls companies should be made public or not.

As we’ve said before, we think registers of ‘beneficial ownership‘ (i.e. registers of who really stands to benefit from company ownership, not just whomever it is convenient or expedient to list) should be published as open data.

We call on open data and transparency advocates around the world to join us in asking their governments to take action on this issue, and to push for concrete commitments to publish registries of beneficial ownership publicly, as open, machine readable databases.

A visualisation of legal entities that are part of the same corporate grouping from OpenCorporates

Who gets to see who really owns companies?

In June G8 countries committed to cracking down on hidden company ownership.

The Lough Erne Declaration and principles to prevent the misuse of companies from the G8 both allude to better information sharing between tax authorities, and state that tax collectors, law enforcers, financial intelligence units, and financial institutions should be able to access information on who really owns companies.

But what about the rest of us? Shouldn’t journalists, campaigners and citizens have access to information about who really owns companies – in order to investigate illicit and unfair behaviour and to push for change?

The advantages of public registries

We think that there are many advantages to having public registries of beneficial ownership information.

Firstly, public registries would enable the media and civil society to hold companies to account – by helping them to identify corruption and illicit activity.

Secondly, studies by the UK, the EU and Global Witness suggest that public registries would be significantly more cost effective than the status quo.

Thirdly, public registries will impose no additional administrative burden on companies – entailing only small modifications to existing processes.

Making them public is not enough – they must be published as open data

For registries of beneficial ownership to have maximum impact, we think it is essential that they are published as machine readable open databases.

Users of the data must be able to analyse the data and to easily cross reference and combine datasets from different sources. Hence it is essential that they are machine readable, and available for downloading in bulk (as per the Open Definition), rather than published as non-machine-readable documents or through a search interface which limits querying.

Furthermore the data should be openly licensed to enable people to use it, republish it, and combine it with other datasets. We think is essential if we are to gradually piece together a shared, collaborative ecosystem of data about companies and their activity around the world.

Now is time to act

There are several major opportunities to make progress on this issue in the coming months:

  • The UK currently has an open consultation on beneficial ownership (closing 16th September 2013), which explicitly asks for views on whether the registry should be made public. If you’re in the UK and want to see the registry being made public as open data, we strongly encourage you to respond with arguments and evidence about why this matters. If the UK commits to making registries public, then it is much more likely that other countries will follow.
  • The EU is also in the process of updating and improving its Anti Money Laundering Directive, which represents a major opportunity to increase transparency of beneficial ownership in Europe.
  • For the Open Government Partnership partner countries, the Open Government Partnership Summit this autumn will provide an opportune moment for governments to announce their commitments to public registries of beneficial ownership. We hope to see as many governments and civil society organisations as possible coming out in support of public registries, published in accordance with open data principles.

You’ll be hearing more from us on this issue in the coming weeks and months, so watch this space! If you’re interested in discussing this with us, you can join our public openspending list.

Get Updates