Many countries with access to information (ATI) laws lack recent data on the number of requests they received, according a new UNESCO survey.
Out of 91 countries and territories with ATI laws, only 44% (40) had request data for 2020, according to a summary of the survey results.
The remaining 56% (51) only had data from either 2018 or 2019, or no data at all, UNESCO said. The report provides no further breakdown. The UN agency noted that “the low number of data availability” in 2020 might be pandemic-related.
A similar lack of record-keeping was found for the appeals process.
The information-gathering effort was done as part of UNESCO’s lead role in monitoring progress by countries toward achieving the Strategic Development Goal of having and implementing ATI laws (SDG 16.10.2).
Of the 193 UN member countries, 132 “have adopted various ATI legal guarantees,” according to UNESCO’s tally. Of these, 98 responded to the survey.
The eight-question survey was sent out in early April, 2021, with a due date of May 3, 2021. (See EYE story.) More countries responded than in 2020, when an ATI survey had 20 questions. The information is designed to help establish baseline data for the SDG process.
UNESCO is not planning to release country-by country details of the survey results, an official told EYE.
Summary Results Reported
The 35-page report, posted online but not yet publicly announced, includes summary results, background information and several case studies.
UNESCO reported on 102 responses: from 98 UN member countries and four “territories.” UNESCO includes in its tallies the replies from four territories (Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Jersey and Cayman Islands).
Of the 102 total respondents, 91 have “constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for ATI,” UNESCO said. All the responding territories have some form of ATI regime. Of 98 UN member countries, 87 have ATI regimes.
“Five countries indicated an absence of ATI guarantees, while six others reported that they are ‘in progress’ in adopting such guarantees.”
Scoring System, But No Scores Public
The survey’s 8 questions were given values between 0 and 2, such that a country would get a total score of 0-9, “enabling it to track progress over time.”
“Out of 79 countries and territories with ATI oversight institutions, 70% of them scored 7 and above,” UNESCO said. “Meanwhile, 12 countries without ATI 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,” according to UNESCO.
A UNESCO official said the scores will not be disclosed, saying the data “is for UNESCO to be able to distill trends at a regional basis and not to rank countries.” He added, “We received several requests from Information Commissioners to share the information per country that is then shared accordingly.”
The list of respondents is in footnote 27. UNESCO has an ATI policy.
Data on ATI Replies
Countries having data on requests also answered a question on the disposition of requests.
From the data available for 2020, from 40 countries and territories, the majority of ATI requests were granted (75% of cases) and only 13% were denied, with the remainder being dismissed as ineligible 33 (8%) and pending (4%), according to UNESCO.
Appeals were successful at a lower rate, 48% were granted. “Only 15% were denied, with the rest being dismissed as ineligible (15%) and pending (22%),” UNESCO said, also noting some complications with the numbers.
Commenting in record-keeping, the report says that “the survey flagged some inconsistencies in data and information, signalling that record-keeping remains one of the major areas of improvement for these oversight institutions.”
“Since what cannot be measured cannot be improved, it is essential to ensure adequate and reliable records of the requests and appeals received, so that evidence can be generated to track progress,” UNESCO concluded.
Implementing Bodies Not Universal
The survey reports on whether public information offices need to be created to handle requests.
“Out of the 91 countries and territories with ATI guarantees, 71% (65) reported that their respective guarantee specifies the need for public bodies (Ministry/Agency/Department) to appoint public information officers or a specific unit to handle requests for information by the public,” UNESCO said. “In 62 countries, this provision applies to ‘all public bodies’, while it applies only to ‘some public bodies’ in three countries.”
UNESCO concluded:
An in-depth assessment is needed on whether this requirement is realised in reality, but nevertheless, this finding shows a positive trend towards acknowledging the importance of a dedicated arrangement within public bodies to deal with ATI, which in itself sets the foundation for both proactive and reactive disclosure. Since such a dedicated arrangement is ideally tasked with recordkeeping and reporting, this would also greatly contribute to the monitoring on ATI implementation.
Exemptions Tallied
“Out of the 91 responding countries and territories with ATI guarantees, 81% (83) reported that their respective ATI legal guarantee explicitly mentions permissible exemptions that are elaborated in well-defined categories whereby requests for information may be legally denied,” UNESCO states.
The report shows nine categories of exemptions. According to the results, “privacy” is an exemption in 84.6 percent of the countries and territories with laws.
The report does not elaborate on the eight countries whose ATI regimes apparently lack any exemptions.
Oversight Bodies Widespread
“Out of the 91 responding countries and territories with ATI guarantees, 87% (79) reported that their respective ATI legal guarantee specifies the need of a dedicated oversight institution(s),” UNESCO says. The report states:
“Information Commissioner is the most common type (34), followed with a converged body that combines data/privacy protection and ATI (18); Ombuds institution (17) and Department/ Ministry/ Agency (17); Other (11); Data protection or privacy commissioner (9); and Human Rights Commission (3). In the majority of countries and territories, these institutions operate at the national level, with only few of them indicating the existence at the sub-national level.
When it comes to the roles of the ATI oversight institutions as mandated by the guarantees, the majority of countries and territories responded ‘Monitoring of ATI implementation’ (74), followed with ‘Appeals’ (65); ‘Oversight’ (63); ‘Enforcement of compliance with ATI legal guarantee’ (55) and ‘Mediation’ (32). ‘Mediation’ seems like the most uncommon role, but it is interesting to note that 50% of respondents in Africa (7 out of 15) and Latin America and the Caribbean (10 out of 20) reported on this role, indicating a small tendency in these regions to propose an alternative solution to resolve a dispute before proceeding to any formal procedure.
The answers to a question designed to assess the independence of the oversight bodies “revealed that out of the 91 responding countries and territories with ATI laws, the majority of them (44) indicated that the head of the ATI oversight institution is appointed by the ‘Executive’,” the report states. “The ‘Legislative’ branch is the second most answered (27), followed with ‘Other’ (16) and ‘Judiciary’ (1).”
The report also describes the arrangements for budget approval and some of the activities of the oversight bodies.
Positive Spin
At times the report draws positive conclusions about trends without citing comparative temporal data.
For example, about legal frameworks, the report says, “National regulation systems are increasingly conducive to public access to information.”
The data on creation of dedicated ATI response offices is called a “positive trend.”
Results of Separate Report on Disabilities Reported
The report summarizes findings from a separate study, concerning ATI and persons with disabilities.
The research was done in 2020 by an independent researcher, Lida Ayoubim Senior Lecturer in Law at Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand.
She found that laws in 37 countries (out of 127) “explicitly refer to persons with disabilities and their rights, to varying degrees.” The SDG report says, “Where reference is made to persons with disabilities and accessibility of information, the scope of the disabilities covered and the rights secured for persons with disabilities are rather limited, or not always clear.” Nine specific “shortfalls” are listed.
Higher Response Rate
The 102 countries and territories responding to the 2021 UNESCO ATI survey was a significant improvement from the 65 countries that responded to the 2020. See EYE article on UNESCO’s November 2020 report about the earlier survey.
The response rate in the 2021 survey, UNESCO wrote, was an increase of 48%. ”This positive trend demonstrates a growing enthusiasm among countries in reporting on ‘Access to Information’ within the framework of the SDGs.”
Just over half of all UN members replied to UNESCO’s 2021 survey. Of those with AI regimes, almost two-thirds responded.
