Kategorisasi Badan Publik (UK)


Lagi meriset kategorisasi badan publik di UK, siapa tahu menarik buat komparasi:

Kelihatannya rapi dari luar, tapi kalau ditilik lebih dalam masih kacau juga. Beberapa regulator masuk kategori badan publik di satu dokumen, tapi tidak di dokumen lainnya.

Dasar penentuan Badan Publik di Freedom of Information Act (UK) 2000 adalah lewat lampiran undang-undang yang bisa diamandemen dari waktu ke waktu atau alternatifnya, Menteri Kehakiman dan Konstitusi (bukan Depkonminfonya, karena penentuan status badan publik termasuk permasalahan administratif umum, tidak terbatas pada FoI saja) diberikan kewenangan UU untuk mengkategorikan badan badan baru sebagai badan publik. 
Mungkin sistem ini lebih memberikan kepastian dibandingkan sekadar interpretasi Undang Undang.

Yang menarik dalam konsultasi itu adalah analisis 'fungsional' dan 'budget' mengenai badan publik. 
Saya copy paste pertanyaan konsultasinya dibawah.

Salam

20. Some factors which may be relevant to determining these questions ­
many of which have been considered by the courts in the contexts 
mentioned above - are identified below. The presence of one factor in any 
given case would not act as a reliable guide that the person in question 
would satisfy the test, as the question needs to be considered in all the 
circumstances of the particular case at hand. 
• The extent to which in carrying out the function in question the body is 
publicly funded. 
• The extent to which the organisation’s activities are underpinned by 
statute.  For example, are an organisation’s functions recognised by or 
provided for in legislation? If not, does the organisation nevertheless 
operate under the authority of the government or of another part of the 
public sector? 
• Whether the organisation exercises extensive or monopolistic powers, 
for example, by regulating entry to a trade, profession or sport. 
• Whether the organisation’s source of power is derived from more than 
voluntary submission to its jurisdiction. For example, where a party has 
no choice but to submit to its jurisdiction if they wish to take part in a 
particular activity. 
• Whether the organisation seeks to achieve some collective benefit for 
the public, and is accepted by the public as having the authority to do 
so. 
• Whether the organisation participates in a significant way in the social 
affairs of the nation, pursuant to the public interest. 
• In the case of a regulatory organisation, whether but for the existence 
of that organisation, the government would inevitably have intervened 
to regulate the activity in question.
 
 2.2 Appropriateness of coverage 
21. Considerations that might be suitable to be taken into account under this 
heading include whether the organisation concerned receives public 
funding and whether the benefits of public access to the information held 
appear to outweigh any negative impacts, for example in terms of 
additional burdens on resources. 

2.2.1 Organisation funding 
22. It may be appropriate to extend coverage of the Act only to those 
organisations that receive funding from the public purse or from fees 
charged as a consequence of performing a public function. Since only 
information relating to an organisation’s public functions would be covered 
by the Act, it would seem logical to specify those functions as the ones in 
respect of which an organisation to be included in a section 5 order should 
receive public funding. 
23. There are a number of different sources of public funding for organisations, 
including core funding, funding for infrastructure purposes and funding to 
deliver specified services. Some functions of a public nature are funded 
by the charging of a levy.  For example, the Pensions Ombudsman, who is 
already covered by the Act, is funded by a levy on pension providers. 
Q3: Should some form of public funding be essential in order for an 
organisation to be considered for inclusion in a section 5 order, or 
should this be just one of a number of relevant factors to be considered? 
Q4: Are there any organisations or categories of organisations that do 
not receive public funding but that you believe should be covered by the 
Act? Please explain why.

Kategorisasi Badan Publik (UK)

Lagi meriset kategorisasi badan publik di UK, siapa tahu menarik buat komparasi:

Kelihatannya rapi dari luar, tapi kalau ditilik lebih dalam masih kacau juga. Beberapa regulator masuk kategori badan publik di satu dokumen, tapi tidak di dokumen lainnya.

Dasar penentuan Badan Publik di Freedom of Information Act (UK) 2000 adalah lewat lampiran undang-undang yang bisa diamandemen dari waktu ke waktu atau alternatifnya, Menteri Kehakiman dan Konstitusi (bukan Depkonminfonya, karena penentuan status badan publik termasuk permasalahan administratif umum, tidak terbatas pada FoI saja) diberikan kewenangan UU untuk mengkategorikan badan badan baru sebagai badan publik. 
Mungkin sistem ini lebih memberikan kepastian dibandingkan sekadar interpretasi Undang Undang.

Yang menarik dalam konsultasi itu adalah analisis 'fungsional' dan 'budget' mengenai badan publik. 
Saya copy paste pertanyaan konsultasinya dibawah.

Salam

20. Some factors which may be relevant to determining these questions ­
many of which have been considered by the courts in the contexts 
mentioned above - are identified below. The presence of one factor in any 
given case would not act as a reliable guide that the person in question 
would satisfy the test, as the question needs to be considered in all the 
circumstances of the particular case at hand. 
• The extent to which in carrying out the function in question the body is 
publicly funded. 
• The extent to which the organisation’s activities are underpinned by 
statute.  For example, are an organisation’s functions recognised by or 
provided for in legislation? If not, does the organisation nevertheless 
operate under the authority of the government or of another part of the 
public sector? 
• Whether the organisation exercises extensive or monopolistic powers, 
for example, by regulating entry to a trade, profession or sport. 
• Whether the organisation’s source of power is derived from more than 
voluntary submission to its jurisdiction. For example, where a party has 
no choice but to submit to its jurisdiction if they wish to take part in a 
particular activity. 
• Whether the organisation seeks to achieve some collective benefit for 
the public, and is accepted by the public as having the authority to do 
so. 
• Whether the organisation participates in a significant way in the social 
affairs of the nation, pursuant to the public interest. 
• In the case of a regulatory organisation, whether but for the existence 
of that organisation, the government would inevitably have intervened 
to regulate the activity in question.

 2.2 Appropriateness of coverage 
21. Considerations that might be suitable to be taken into account under this 
heading include whether the organisation concerned receives public 
funding and whether the benefits of public access to the information held 
appear to outweigh any negative impacts, for example in terms of 
additional burdens on resources. 

2.2.1 Organisation funding 
22. It may be appropriate to extend coverage of the Act only to those 
organisations that receive funding from the public purse or from fees 
charged as a consequence of performing a public function. Since only 
information relating to an organisation’s public functions would be covered 
by the Act, it would seem logical to specify those functions as the ones in 
respect of which an organisation to be included in a section 5 order should 
receive public funding. 
23. There are a number of different sources of public funding for organisations, 
including core funding, funding for infrastructure purposes and funding to 
deliver specified services. Some functions of a public nature are funded 
by the charging of a levy.  For example, the Pensions Ombudsman, who is 
already covered by the Act, is funded by a levy on pension providers. 
Q3: Should some form of public funding be essential in order for an 
organisation to be considered for inclusion in a section 5 order, or 
should this be just one of a number of relevant factors to be considered? 
Q4: Are there any organisations or categories of organisations that do 
not receive public funding but that you believe should be covered by the 
Act? Please explain why.

OECD announces new transparency and anti-corruption initiative – clean.gov.biz

 

Image001

 

OECD - Paris 3 March 2011

 

 

OECD announces new transparency and anti-corruption initiative – clean.gov.biz

 

 

The OECD is developing a new initiative to improve coordination of anti-corruption and transparency initiatives - first within its member countries, and then with all other relevant players, including governments, international organisations, NGOs and the private sector.

 

“We are developing a new initiative, clean.gov.biz, that will improve our own anti-corruption tools and reinforce their implementation,” OECD Deputy Secretary-General Richard Boucher said. “We then want to strengthen cooperation with all relevant players to ensure that our instruments complement those of our partners.”

 

Mr. Boucher discussed the initiative during the March 2-3 meeting of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, hosted at the OECD, underlining how many of its elements complement EITI work. EITI aims to improve natural resource management and reduce corruption by encouraging oil, gas and mining companies to publish the fees, royalties and taxes they pay and commiting governments to transparency about what they receive.

 

The OECD is at the forefront of global anti-corruption efforts. In 2010, its 34 member countries and leading partners including Brazil and Russia agreed to a Declaration on Propriety, Integrity and Transparency in the Conduct of International Business and Finance. The Declaration is based on OECD instruments including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Entreprises, which since 1975 set standards for business behavior, and the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, which set out broad rules to guide business conduct.

 

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention commits 38 signatory governments to establish bribery of foreign public officials as a criminal offence. OECD work on public procurement, public sector integrity, including on lobbying and conflicts of interest, as well as budget transparency is at the core of the reform agenda in a growing number of countries. “Political turmoil in highly corrupted regimes reminds us that citizens around the world will no longer accept corruption as business as usual,” Mr. Boucher said.

 

The OECD is also actively cooperating with the G20 in the implementation of its Action Plan on Anti-Corruption, which includes initiatives on foreign bribery, asset recovery, international cooperation, protection of whistle blowers, government integrity and public-private partnerships in fighting corruption. It will co-organise with the French Presidency and the support of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime a G20 conference in April 27-28 on “Joining forces against corruption: G20 business and government.”

 

For further information on the OECD’s anti-corruption work, visit www.oecd.org/corruption or contact the OECD Media Division (tel: + 33 1 4524 9700; news.contact@oecd.org).

 

 

Image002

Bochra KRIOUT
Media Coordinator

Public Affairs & Communications Directorate - Media Division

 

2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 28  or  +33 1 45 24 97 00  - Fax: +33 1 45 24 94 37

Bochra.KRIOUT@oecd.org  || www.oecd.org

 

Follow us on:

 
Image004
  
Image005
  
Image006

 


OECD announces new transparency and anti-corruption initiative – clean.gov.biz

 

Image001

 

OECD - Paris 3 March 2011

 

 

OECD announces new transparency and anti-corruption initiative – clean.gov.biz

 

 

The OECD is developing a new initiative to improve coordination of anti-corruption and transparency initiatives - first within its member countries, and then with all other relevant players, including governments, international organisations, NGOs and the private sector.

 

“We are developing a new initiative, clean.gov.biz, that will improve our own anti-corruption tools and reinforce their implementation,” OECD Deputy Secretary-General Richard Boucher said. “We then want to strengthen cooperation with all relevant players to ensure that our instruments complement those of our partners.”

 

Mr. Boucher discussed the initiative during the March 2-3 meeting of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, hosted at the OECD, underlining how many of its elements complement EITI work. EITI aims to improve natural resource management and reduce corruption by encouraging oil, gas and mining companies to publish the fees, royalties and taxes they pay and commiting governments to transparency about what they receive.

 

The OECD is at the forefront of global anti-corruption efforts. In 2010, its 34 member countries and leading partners including Brazil and Russia agreed to a Declaration on Propriety, Integrity and Transparency in the Conduct of International Business and Finance. The Declaration is based on OECD instruments including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Entreprises, which since 1975 set standards for business behavior, and the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, which set out broad rules to guide business conduct.

 

The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention commits 38 signatory governments to establish bribery of foreign public officials as a criminal offence. OECD work on public procurement, public sector integrity, including on lobbying and conflicts of interest, as well as budget transparency is at the core of the reform agenda in a growing number of countries. “Political turmoil in highly corrupted regimes reminds us that citizens around the world will no longer accept corruption as business as usual,” Mr. Boucher said.

 

The OECD is also actively cooperating with the G20 in the implementation of its Action Plan on Anti-Corruption, which includes initiatives on foreign bribery, asset recovery, international cooperation, protection of whistle blowers, government integrity and public-private partnerships in fighting corruption. It will co-organise with the French Presidency and the support of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime a G20 conference in April 27-28 on “Joining forces against corruption: G20 business and government.”

 

For further information on the OECD’s anti-corruption work, visit www.oecd.org/corruption or contact the OECD Media Division (tel: + 33 1 4524 9700; news.contact@oecd.org).

 

 

Image002

Bochra KRIOUT
Media Coordinator

Public Affairs & Communications Directorate - Media Division

 

2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 28  or  +33 1 45 24 97 00  - Fax: +33 1 45 24 94 37

Bochra.KRIOUT@oecd.org  || www.oecd.org

 

Follow us on:

 
Image004
  
Image005
  
Image006

 

Center for Law Information supports "Special Procedure on climate change and human rights"

Click here to download:
11-02-28 CC Letter, ver 3 (1).pdf (33 KB)


A group of world Non Governmental Organizations, including the Center for Law Information (CeLI), petition for the establishment of a  Special Procedure on climate change and human rights. The NGOs consider that establishment of a special procedure, such as that which provide a mandate to a special rapporteur, would be an efficient way to tackle the issue. 

A letter was sent to diplomatic missions in Geneva urging them to "publicly call for the creation of a Special Procedure
on climate change and human rights who reports to the Human Rights Council in a resolution to be adopted at the 17th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council in June 2011."

See attached letter for further information

Monitoring, Oversight, Accountability: the role of human rights (World Water Week)

This session on Human Rights is chaired by an official from the German's BMZ. The Indepent Expert on Human Right to Water explains the role of accountability in delivering Human Rights. Without accountability/oversight, human rights will not be served. If information on coverage and information on water quality is not available, citizens will not be able to ask for the state's accountability in securing Human Rights. Join at room T3. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

Leader's Dialogue (World Water Week)

Img00228-20100908-1607


Moderator: Margaret Catley-Coxon

Thai minister Suwit Khunkitte explains the condition of Thai's water resources. They tried to implement Water Grid System and introduce capacity building. The minister considers that more water does not lead to more productivity. Efficiency is more relevant.

Thai is focusing on participation programs. The King talked to the farmers that forest are important to them. One million questionnaires are sent to water users.

Interesting comment from the minister: ADB is pushing Thailand to charge its water. Ramesh Vaidya elaborate that the use of water for agriculture is high. Charging water for irrigation may not work if the institution is not set up. He refers to the work of Elinor Ostrom that there could be other ways: e.g. taxes, community participation and management.

Ravi Narayanan pointed the problem of information in water resources management. Margaret responds that it may be a good idea to crowdsource information gathering in WRM.

Highlights:

*Pricing

Uniform water pricing is difficult to implement. However, variety of prices may impact competitiveness on the food market.

*Tradeoff
1 percent saving in agriculture is 30 percent saving for drinking water