A growing interest in reporting on ATI
70% of them scored 7 and above.
oversight institutions scored between 1 and 7.2.
This finding suggested that countries that have a specialised ATI oversight body are likely to perform better than those without.
UNESCO also joined forces with networks of oversight institutions responsible for access to information, such as the International Conference of Information Commissioners, the International Ombudsman Institute and Red de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información (regional Latin American network of information commissioners) to increase participation of countries in the survey.
The exercise also revealed that out of the 102 countries and territories and territories that responded to the survey, 82 of them are members of networks of oversight institutions responsible for access to information (e.g. International Conference of Information Commissioners, the International Ombudsman Institute and Red de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información). This demonstrates the important role of such networks in advocating for SDG monitoring and reporting, as well as mobilising their members in taking part in global-wide activities related to the SDGs. UNESCO noted that such coalition-building is key for addressing gaps in the SDG monitoring and reporting. These networks could serve as platforms, through which SDG monitoring and reporting processes could be improved over time.
 These data need to be taken with caution, as the two countries with the score of 5.2 and 7.2 first reported their ATI guarantees did not specify the need for ATI oversight institutions, but later reported some activities done by these oversight institutions, which demonstrated an inconsistency.