By Toby McIntosh
The United Nations Environment Programme is continuing its awkward and slow handling on access to information requests.
A decision concerning an appeal filed seven months ago by Eye on Global Transparency, and answers to three information requests, are now long overdue.
UNEP officials continue say that the March 8 appeal of a request for a contract is under review by the appeals panel.
But curiously, UNEP only recently said it had “obtained” the requested document, a contract. Also, UNEP said it had written to the contractor to get permission to release the document, an assertion of veto power that EYE disputes as inconsistent with the UNEP access to information policy.
Further, and irregularly, UNEP asked EYE for the “purpose” of its request. Supplying a reason for making a request is not a requirement for requesters under UNEP’s access policy.
And mystery still surrounds whether the UNEP appeals panel is fully constituted and who serves on it.
Since June, EYE has requested the names of the three members, including the outside independent expert. EYE made a formal request for the membership on July 5, but has not received a reply.
Other EYE requests also appear to be hung up.
The apparent problems with the UNEP access process were the subject on an Sept. 8 EYE article: A Requester’s Saga: Dysfunction at the UNEP Over Handling Access Requests
Readers: For notification of new postings sign up for free in the right column. Follow EYE on Twitter @tobyjmcintosh. Or follow Eye on Global Transparency via LinkedIn.
Appeal Still Under Review, Panelists Still a Mystery
UNEP continues to say EYE’s appeal is under review.
The requested UNEP contract with Kayrros for satellite images was the document that EYE requested on Jan. 24. Access was denied on Feb. 14 and EYE appealed the denial on March 8.
The appeal then seemed to have disappeared into vacuum until a series of e-mail requests finally resulted in UNEP saying in early September that the appeal “is currently being reviewed.”
There has been some evidence of activity.
On Sept. 12, UNEP official Camila Nkwenti provided an update, saying, “We have obtained the documents … including the legal instrument between UNEP and Kayrros for the supply of methane emissions data.”
On Sept. 12, Nkwenti also said: “We have also contacted Kayrros with whom the agreement was consulted to request their consent to share the agreement with you. Given that UNEP signed the agreement with them and they are a party we will need to first seek their consent to share the agreement with you.”
She concluded, “I will revert to you once we hear more from them.”
She did not say whether UNEP had contacted Kayrros before access was denied on the grounds that the contract is “confidential.”
EYE replied, saying that consent of the third party “is not consistent with the UNEP access policy.” Rather, UNEP’s policy promises confidentiality if an expectation of confidentiality has been “expressly stated.”
EYE also said in its appeal that even if valid confidentiality claims exists regarding some specific piece of information in the contract, this portion should be redacted and the rest of the contract should be released.
Why Do You Ask?
Nkwenti on Sept. 19 made an unusual request, for “the purpose for the request of the agreement with Kayrros.” She said, “This will assist the panel in making the decision regarding this matter.”
Such a request, EYE replied, is “contrary to the letter and the spirit of the UNEP access to information policy.” EYE said, “Simply put, requesters are not required to provide their motivation.”
Nevertheless, EYE spelled out why the material is relevant to EYE’s coverage of the methane project.
EYE has written about the project several times, most recently on June 21, UN Methane Project Sets Later Target for Releasing Data on Large Emissions. Previous EYE articles on the MARS project: 45-75 Day Time-Delay Planned by IMEO for Release of Date on Methane Emissions, Nov. 30, 2022; and 40-50 Large Methane Emissions a Month May Be Revealed Soon, UN Official Says, March 22, 2023.
Latest Status Report
The appeal remains under review, UNEP continues to say.
Answering an inquiry, UNEP-Info on Oct. 10 wrote, “As communicated earlier, the panel is still reviewing your appeal request and will revert once this is finalized.
Delays Handling Other Requests
UNEP has not responded yet on two other EYE requests, in addition to the one for the names of panel members.
One is more than two months old.
That request, made Aug. 8, seeks documents about meetings held by an advisory body to a UNEP project on methane.
In January, similar materials were supplied within three weeks. However, the request for documents about more recent meetings has languished for more than two months.
On Sept. 6, Nkwenti wrote that the relevant UNEP official who handled the first request, “is on mission away from UNEP headquarters,” adding, “She had indicated that she will provided the requested information as soon at her earliest convenience.”
Since then; nothing. Follow-up messages were sent on Sept. 27 and Oct. 9.
On Oct. 18, UNEP-Info replied generally, “As communicated earlier, your requests are under review and you will be notified in due course.”
Another EYE request, for reports about the UNEP access to information process, was made Sept. 28 and apparently is pending, too. EYE asked for “UNEP reports concerning the implementation of the Access to Information Policy prepared from Jan. 1, 2018, until the present.”
By contrast, a quick answer was supplied to one other EYE request, of Sept. 28, for an English copy of a 2014 report, “Implementation of Governing Council decision 27/2: Access to information policy of the United Nations Environment Programme: Report of the Executive Director UNEP/EA.1/2/Add.4.”
The UNEP website had posted only an Arabic version. An English version was provided on Oct. 3, with a note, “UNEP is working on fixing the page to insert the links to all the documents in various UN official languages.” UNEP added, “We will update you once this is done.”
EYE checked. Not yet.
Required Notification Missing
For two of EYE’s pending requests, UNEP has not followed its stated policy to notify requesters when responses are delayed.
“All information requests should be handled promptly,” according to the UNEP policy. “The requestor should expect to receive an acknowledgement of receipt of the request within five (5) working days.” This has occurred for recent requests.
The UNEP policy continues, “Depending on the complexity of the request, UNEP will endeavour to handle all requests within thirty (30) calendar days after the acknowledgment of receipt is sent.”
Further, the policy says, “If it is not possible to handle a request within thirty days, UNEP will inform the requestor of the reason why.”
The 30-day limit has passed for two EYE requests, but no “why” letters have been received.
Because of the delays and the lack of communication, EYE has filed two additional appeals to the appeals panel, alleging that UNEP’s process is dysfunctional and that the delays constitute an effective denial of the requests.
Complaints Mechanism Filing Denied
EYE also lodged its concerns about the access to information program with the UNEP Complaints Mechanism, but was turned down on the grounds that the Complaints Mechanism deals only with “projects.”
Asked on the input form about the “public harm,” EYE wrote that “oversight of UNEP actions is made difficult by a dysfunctional access to information system.”
The rejection note says ” … that the grievance mechanism utilizing the Project Concern form is exclusively intended for addressing concerns related to project-specific safeguard-related issues.”
The policy seems more encompassing, referring to a UNEP “project or activity” and “programmes and projects.”
In the meantime, there are hints that internal improvements are underway.
Keishamaza Rukikaire, the Head of News and Media at UNEP wrote EYE on Sept. 11:
“We acknowledge that we have work to do. We will be reviewing and updating our Access to Information policy and working to ensure the process works smoothly going forward.”
