Case Box 16: How Transparencia Mexicana makes information public Transparencia Mexicana (TM) has an important role in IP implementation and supports the social witness (SW) in performing his/her monitoring role. Within its activities, it makes various information public: 1. At the end of the monitoring, TM delivers a report signed by the expert SW, which is published on its website and often also in the media. 2. TM’s involvement as monitor is made public through its website and through the media. 3. TM presents its experience at different conferences and forums. 4. A special section of TM’s website is dedicated to this topic. See TM’s homepage section on IPs www.tm.org.mx, where SW reports and other documents can be found. During monitoring, TM has a strict communications policy of not making public declarations through the media while the contracting process is ongoing. This protects the monitor and discourages the use of its work for political purposes. Only in exceptional circumstances would TM and not the SW address the press. Once the report has been issued publicly at the end of the process, interaction of the monitor and Transparencia Mexicana with the media is possible. The government and companies are, however, free to report to the media throughout the process. This policy, which has worked well so far for TM, is derived from the specific Mexican context and results from TM's experience. Transparencia Mexicana’s practices opened the way for improved openness. Current procurement and access to information regulations require the publication of the social witness reports and the social witness registry, which includes the names of all individuals and legal persons admitted to perform as social witness. See www.funcionpublica.gob.mx/unaopspf/tsocial/ tsocial.htm.
2. Activities to undertake before the bidding process Transparency International’s experience indicates that the pre-bidding and post-bidding stages bear high corruption risks that are often overlooked. In some cases, most instances of corruption actually occur during these stages – hence the utmost importance of having measures in place early in the process to ensure transparency and accountability. These stages need specific consideration in the IP implementation process.
2.1 During the needs assessment stage (policy-making/project planning) Few governments are equipped to make decisions about needs assessment and magnitude or quantities of investment on major investment projects through their own staff. Most employ consultant engineers or investment bankers to assist in the process. The issue here is to make sure that the consultants selected are truly independent and, for example, not (formally or informally) associated with one or more suppliers or contractors, and therefore tempted to recommend solutions which would benefit their associates. Only consultants who can confirm their independence and who are willing to commit themselves to select and design an investment which is not biased in favour of a particular supplier or contractor should be allowed to participate in the selection process. In addition, a special prohibition can be introduced, by which the consultants who participate at this stage cannot participate during the bidding process.12
Case Box 17: How FBS communicates the Berlin Airport Integrity Pacts FBS invested much time and effort in communicating the Berlin Airport IP at the beginning. It was included in presentations about the project made regularly at the local Chamber of Commerce and other forums, including industry associations. With time, and as bidders and other government officials became familiar with the IP, there was less demand for such information sessions. In addition, the monitor himself is involved in explaining the IP to potential bidders.
58
Transparency International