By Toby McIntosh
A major UNESCO survey on access to information (ATI) at the national level has been such a flop that the agency is radically scaling back its next survey.
Not only was the response rate from governments dismally low, but many of those who responded did not provide full answers. You’d barely know this from UNESCO’s smooth 30-page report.
UNESCO is the “custodian agency for reporting on global progress” toward fulfilling Sustainable Development Goal 16.10.2, which calls for the adoption and implementation “of constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information.”
In this central role, UNESCO could create a uniform measuring stick that would provide consistent data that could be used to prepare a coherent report on ATI worldwide, to compare governments and to evaluate progress by individual governments over time.
However, after its 2020 experience, UNESCO is back at the drawing board. It has drafted a scaled-down survey for the next round, dropping some key questions about ATI activity.
The draft, obtained by EYE, was provided to a group of 18 invited experts who met virtually for two hours on Nov. 30. (No minutes available.)
The UNESCO-funded effort, with the promise of breadth and comparability, has been underway since 2016. How to uniformly assess a complex subject has been the key conundrum, a problem shared by other researchers and national governments.
As part the SDG process, some governments have voluntarily submitted reports addressing ATI, using their own systems.
Independent evaluations also have been done, by national watchdog groups, but funding is an issue and such reports have been conducted in only about several dozen countries, using with different methodologies.
(For more on UNESCO’s efforts, see previous EYE articles: August 2018, September 2018, November 2018, December 2018, March 2019, March 2020, July 2020.)
On Twitter, follow EYE @tobyjmcintosh
Low Response Rate
UNESCO in February of 2020 sent out a survey to 209 countries and associated territories. The responses from 69 countries are generally summarized in a November report.
Perhaps the most candid comment in UNESCO’s report is: “… the survey revealed gaps in record-keeping.”
In reporting on the data-gathering problems, UNESCO noted the pandemic and also complications getting the survey to the right national organization (It was first sent to statistical agencies.) Eventually, UNESCO heard back from 69 countries and associated territories, 62 of which are among the 127 UN countries that have FOI laws.
Not responding were 65 countries with FOI laws, including India, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom. (Full lists included in the report.)
The response rate on specific questions was even lower. For example, “with respect to the number of appeals received, only 29 countries and territories reported on this question,” according to UNESCO’s report.
Super-Sized 2020 Survey
The length of the survey might have been an inhibiting factor, although UNESCO doesn’t speculate.
The survey included 20 questions. (The content was substantially changed from the pilot version. See EYE story from March 2020.)
UNESCO asked about the characteristics of national laws and about their implementation. It asked how many requests for information were submitted, how many got fulfilled and how long it took to get answers.
In addition, UNESCO asked for similar information (23 questions) about two individual government institutions per country. But no results are reported for this “institutional questionnaire.”
Neither does the report say anything about UNESCO’s request to national officials that they collect data from subnational bodies, such as states and provinces. For some countries this might have been a burden. (There are 32 such entities in Mexico and 34 in Indonesia.)
New Draft Has Less Ambition
The proposed new methodology is dramatically scaled down from 20 to nine.
UNESCO is now “readjusting the survey methodology for next data collection cycle,” according the explanatory note provided to the experts.
The new draft has nine questions:
– Three are about the law (Such information already is easily available on the public record and from numerous other sources.),
– Four questions cover what the administrative body does (Does it monitor, train, keep records, etc.),
– Two ask about whether the time it takes to get responses falls within the legal time limits.)
No Questions on Requests, Responses, Reasons
Perhaps the most significant change is the elimination of questions on how many requests for information were submitted and how many got fulfilled or denied, and why.
Also dropped are questions on how many appeals were filed and their outcome.
The survey no longer asks that response time data be broken down into three average time blocks, beginning with 0-30 days, thereby depriving UNESCO of any information about how long it actually takes to respond to requests.
Also eliminated are queries on the gender breakdown of ATI staffers and on ATI-related “capital expenditure.”
Weak Responses on ATI Requests
UNESCO’s 2020 attempt to learn even about the number of requests made and denied was largely unsuccessful. The report says:
Out of the 62 responding countries and territories with ATI legislation, 40 responded to the question on the number of requests filed, granted and denied. However, not all of them provided data for all elements of this question, for instance, the number of requests denied. Several countries and territories also reported that data is not collected or available centrally. This mirrors findings from 2019, and also raises a question about data informing annual reports where these are published.
Only seven countries provided all the data sought on the disclosure and refusal of information, UNESCO’s report says. “In some cases, some countries also reported that all requests received were disclosed, which raises questions about the accuracy of data, as there is usually a number of requests which are dismissed as they are incomplete or do not fall into an ATI request, or there are even a few requests carried over from the previous year or into the next year.”
When asked to indicate the reasons for nondisclosure, most countries opted for the ambiguous option,. “Other.” When “partial disclosure” occurred, the reason “Other” was given more than 90 percent of the time.
ATI Partners With ICIC
Looking for further input, UNESCO on Dec. 4 formed a partnership with International Conference of Information Commissioners. (See announcement.) UNESCO said it intends to consult with the ICIC on the creation of a new survey (called “revised metadata” in UN speak).
In a note prepared for the meeting of experts, UNESCO said, “The objective is to have data collection conducted by countries annually, so that monitoring and reporting become sustainable and institutionalised, contributing to an effective implementation of ATI laws and the overall attainment of the SDGs,” UNESCO said.
No Country-Specific Data to Be Issued
Data from the proposed new survey will be scored, something not attempted with this year’s survey.
Each of the nine questions is valued at between 0 and 1. So a country could score between 0-9 points.
Individual country scores would not be disclosed, but they would “contribute to global aggregates, in which data will be interpreted using the sum formula to show overall trends,” according to UNESCO.
Voluntary Reporting on ATI Limited
The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development encourages countries to conduct Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). These are expected to serve as a basis for the regular reviews by the UN High-level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development, an annual meeting under the auspices of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
In 2019, for the first time since the 2030 Agenda’s adoption, SDG 16, among others, was subjected to a detailed review. During that year, 28 of the 47 countries submitting VNRs (59.5%) reported on access to information.
In 2020, 18 out of 47 VNR countries (38.3%) addressed ‘access to information’ in their reports. UNESCO said this drop was understandable. “This might be seen as a decrease when compared to 2019, but it is worth noting that no specific SDG was specified for a detailed in review in 2020. Hence, the fact that ‘access to information’ was included by these countries in their reports demonstrates their recognition of the importance of ATI when it comes to reporting overall SDG progress.”
