Public bodies compliance to PAI and SDI Act: An enabler for geospatial information freedom

Abstract

This paper discusses the policy environments of two acts in South Africa, the South African Spatial Data Infrastructure Act (Act 54 of 2003) (SDI Act) and the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000), which promote accessibility, transparency, and collaboration for accessing public information. These policies are important for ensuring accountability and good governance. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (section 32) and PAIA provide the legal framework for every citizen to exercise their constitutional right to access any information held by a public entity. This legislation is in line with the international move towards open data and freedom of information (FOI) (Nkwe & Ngoepe, 2021; Coetzee et al., 2020). The SDI Act enables access to geospatial data created by public bodies, promoting the sharing of geospatial data across different sectors and levels of government in South Africa. However, despite the benefits of these policies, implementation constraints are present, such as limited institutional capacity, lack of political will, and insufficient resources. A cohesive policy environment is essential to enable public organisations to address these constraints. Governance frameworks and institutional capacity are crucial to support the implementation and oversight of these policies. To this end, the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UNGGIM) has created the Integrated Geospatial Information Framework (IGIF), which aims to align existing policies with SDI development and encourage contribution to national geospatial information ecosystems. The UNGGIM-IGIF includes a legal and policy strategic pathway that focuses on implementation and accountability (IGIF, 2020). The PAIA requires organisations to compile a manual outlining the records that can be accessed and the procedures for doing so. However, compliance with this provision outlined in section 14 has been low, with investigations in 2010 indicating that only 5% of public bodies had PAIA manuals. More recent assessments in 2016/2017 reported that 70% of national departments, 45% of provincial departments, and 89% of municipalities were found to be non-compliant (Nkwe et al., 2021). The Information Regulator (IR), the oversight body for PAIA, reported in November 2022 that all metropolitan municipalities were non-compliant with the act's provisions. The IR has indicated that they will take strong enforcement action by issuing Enforcement Notices against non-compliant Municipal Managers. Moreover, suppose these managers are found guilty of an offence. In that case, they may face legal consequences, including fines or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years, or both. The implementation of punitive actions, as outlined in the provisions of PAIA, underscores the importance of compliance with the PAIA for Municipal Managers and highlights the IR's commitment to ensuring that public institutions uphold their obligations under the Act (South African Information Regulator, 2021). The key implementation constraints for the PAIA include limited institutional capacity, lack of political will, and poor record management practices. Table 1 summarises the key elements supporting data records provision (South African Information Regulator, 2022) and geospatial data (SDI Act, 2003) in the two pieces of legislation.