![]() |
| Turning public data into public power |
Practical guide: turning public data into public power
This section serves as a guide for citizens, journalists, and civil society organizations to independently verify, analyze, and advocate for greater transparency in climate and environmental projects. Treat each step as part of an iterative learning loop—ask, test, refine, and repeat. By viewing these practical actions as a continuous process—from setting baselines to publishing replication files—you can transform open data into meaningful oversight and accountability, echoing the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) principles discussed earlier.
Step 1 — Pin down the baseline (don’t move the goalposts).
Before accepting “impact,” ask: Impact against what?
For floods: historic water-level or depth maps per neighborhood; baseline water-logging days.
For nature-based projects: initial canopy cover and species-site plan per plot; survival targets at 12 & 36 months.
Document data sources and commit to the same method post-project (IPCC/UNFCCC MEL logic).
Ask the agency to publish CSV/JSON for the following: project plan, BoQ items, contract awards, beneficial owners, change orders, delivery notes, field tests, and as-built attributes—linked by a unique project/contract ID. Quote the Open Data Charter and OC4IDS: data should be timely, accessible, comparable, and interoperable. As advocates say, 'Data trapped in PDFs is data denied,' emphasizing the need for open and accessible information to ensure transparency and accountability (Open Data Charter/opendatacharter.org).
Step 3 — Verify event severity using open rainfall data.
Use GPM/IMERG to sum rainfall over your city for the flood week and compare it to the seasonal norm. If the event was moderate but damage was extreme, that’s a red flag for underbuilt or clogged systems (NASA GPM).
Step 4 — Check the construction at the pixel level.
In Earth Engine, view Sentinel-2 imagery:
Draw the dike/drain alignment and compare monthly composites throughout the construction period.
Look for fresh earthworks, riprap texture, or canal widening.
If the report says 'completed,' but the 10m imagery shows no change, it's essential to consider, 'what if the pixels lie?' This prompts a critical look into the reliability of satellite data. To avoid errors or misclassifications, cross-reference satellite cues with dated geotagged photos and as-builts. This combination ensures that on-ground realities match digital reports (ESA/NASA Sentinel-2 docs; Earth Engine).
Step 5 — Ground-truth nature claims.
For reforestation/mangroves, check whether land-cover shifted from bare/tidal to vegetation in the claimed polygons using Copernicus 100 m GLC and simple NDVI trends; cross-check with survival audits (Copernicus GLC).
Step 6 — Tie money to milestones.
Cross-reference contract disbursements with physical proofs: test reports, delivery GRNs, milestone photos, and satellite evidence. If payments are 100% but pixels and tests are thin, it’s time for an audit.
Step 7 — Publish your replication file.
Whether you’re a newsroom or neighborhood association, release your method, code, and shapefiles. Public reproducibility pressures agencies to meet the same standard.
Minimum disclosure package for climate projects (win trust)
- Plan: Define the problem being addressed, establish baselines for comparison, and set key performance indicators (KPIs) with clear methods and data sources to measure progress and impact. Benefit: This allows communities to understand where projects start, track how effectively issues such as flooding are mitigated, and hold project managers accountable by comparing planned goals with actual outcomes.
- Procurement: Disclose procurement data in accordance with the Open Contracting Data Standard (OCDS), including information on beneficial ownership, bidding processes, contract awards, and detailed line-item prices, to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Progress: Track and share project milestones through tables, report on laboratory tests, document as-built project attributes, and publish open geospatial data to provide evidence of ongoing work.
- Outcomes: Present indicators that account for real-world events (e.g., flood depth following similar rainfall) to show actual impact, and report survival rates at specified intervals for projects involving natural restoration.
- Grievance: Maintain an online log that records complaints or issues, categorizes them, lists relevant dates, and documents outcomes, with weekly updates for ongoing transparency.
- (Backed by ODC principles; CoST/OC4IDS; OCP evidence.)
Why this is about justice, not just spreadsheets
When numbers are locked in PDFs, the poorest pay twice—first through projects that underdeliver, then through the next flood, heatwave, or landslide. Open, verifiable data is not a luxury; it’s a life-safety control. The evidence is clear: countries and cities that publish structured procurement and project data improve competition, value for money, and trust (OCP 2024; CoST). The tools to verify rainfall, land cover, and construction are free. What’s missing in many places isn’t technology—it’s political will (OCP).
To channel this moral drive into concrete action, I propose a single policy change: mandate the use of the OC4IDS for all climate-related contracts. This would ensure transparency, enable effective monitoring, and hold all stakeholders accountable, making data a tool for justice as much as for governance.

Comments
Post a Comment