By Toby McIntosh
In a secret decision by a secret appeals panel, the UN Environmental Programme has partially denied a 12-month old request for information by Eye on Global Transparency.
A “secret appeals panel,” because UNEP said it would not disclose the names of the three members of the Access to Information Panel, which includes one external member. In 2016, UNEP issued a press release about the appointment of the first external member and other international information make such information public.
A “secret decision,” because UNEP did not provide the Panel’s report and recommendations; standard operating procedure elsewhere.
The Panel’s report and recommendations went to UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen, who has the authority to make final decisions on appeals under the UNEP Access to Information Policy. Her determination was described in a short UNEP e-mail to EYE on Jan. 31.
UNEP’s communication appears to violate a clause in the policy requiring an explanation for denials. The policy states: “In case of rejecting an appeal, UNEP will provide the requestor with a reason for such rejection.” But UNEP said this provision doesn’t apply to partial rejections.
Readers: For sure notification of new postings please sign up in the “Stay Informed” column to the right. Or follow Eye on Global Transparency via LinkedIn or on X (Twitter) @tobyjmcintosh.
Portions of Contract Provided
More than year ago, EYE requested a copy of a contract between UNEP and Kayrros, a commercial provider of satellite images about methane emissions.
UNEP provided portions of the 12-page License Agreement, but with many sections blacked out, including virtually all of the material under the heading “Deliverables.” No information on the financial terms of the contract was disclosed.
A section on “Distribution” holds some interest because it appears to limit how quickly UNEP can publicly distribute the data on emissions that it receives from Kayrros, a French company.
UNEP has an ongoing project intended to provide more transparency about methane emissions — the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) run by the International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO). (See EYE article.)
The License Agreement with Kayrros states that IMEO must not publicly distribute specific emissions data until one month after it appears on the Kayrros Methane Watch Platform, a subscription service.
EYE first requested a copy of the contract on Jan. 24, 2023. UNEP denied access categorically on Feb. 18. EYE appealed on March 8, but the appeal languished for months. See EYE article Sept 8, A Requester’s Saga: Dysfunction at the UNEP Over Handling Access Requests, and a follow-up Oct. 25 story.
UNEP’s Secrecy at Odds With Standard Practice
EYE also asked, informally at first and then formally on July 5, about the identities of the members of the three-person panel that would decide on its appeal. Not receiving an answer, EYE filed an appeal on Oct. 19. The denial is brief.
“UNEP is not able to provide the names of the panel members,” according to the five-paragraph Jan. 31 letter from the UNEP Access to Information Desk, without further explanation.
The secrecy about the panel members runs counter to the practices at other international organizations with similar appeals mechanisms. The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank routinely disclose the names of the members of the external appeals panels.
UNEP has a three-person panel to handle appeals, made up of two UNEP staffers and an external expert. The first external member was Carole Excell, a FOI expert and environmental lawyer whose appointment was announced in a press release by UNEP on June 30, 2016. She stepped down in 2020.
At the World Bank, information about the Access to Information Appeals Board, including pictures and information about them, is posted on the Board’s web page. Excell is one of the three members, although her term expires Jan. 31, 2024.
The IDB also posts information about its appeals panel members.
On Feb. 2, replying to follow-up questions from EYE, UNEP wrote: “You also received information about the panel’s composition which the Executive Director agreed to share.” The Jan. 31 response said “the panel is properly constituted with three members, two of whom are UNEP staff members and one external member who is a staff of another UN entity.”
The only slight tidbit provided in this explanation is that the third member, who can’t must be “from outside of UNEP” under UNEP’s policy is employe by another UN body.
The Feb. 2 amplification continued, “There is no requirement in the policy for the names to be shared and you were given the name of the person overseeing the work of the Access to Information Desk.”
Panel Report Not Released
Another deviation from standard practice is UNEP’s decision not to disclose the report from its appeals panel.
At the World Bank, where there are two stages of appeal, the decisions are placed on the website. The Access to Information Committee decisions here and the AI Appeals Board decisions here.
In a Feb. 2 response to questions, UNEP said the Panel advises the Executive Director and “there is no requirement in the Policy to share the report and recommendations further.”
The policy states: “The Panel’s primary function is to assist the Executive Director to review appeals relating to a request for information and to determine whether the Policy has been properly applied, and to submit its conclusion and relevant recommendations to the Executive Director.”
The policy does not prohibit disclosure of the Panel report.
No Explanations Needed, UNEP Says
UNEP said that because parts of the contracts were provided, the request was not “rejected,” so no explanation was required.
Only total rejections require an explanation, according to a Feb. 2 reply to EYE from the UNEP Access to Information Desk, stating: “The panel did not reject your appeals. You received a redacted copy of the agreement.”
Usual practice under FOI rules is to tell requesters the reasons for not disclosing each redacted portion of a document. Redacted documents are marked to indicate the exact applicable exemption. Appeals decisions at the World Bank and other institutions, and at the national level, are replete with references to the exemption or exemptions used.
UNEP’s Jan. 31 short letter on EYE’s request says, “Kindly note that UNEP considers both appeals closed.”
Text of the UNEP Jan. 31, 2024 letter
Dear Mr. McIntosh,
Reference is made to two appeals submitted to UNEP in relation to the release of the License Agreement between Kayrros and UNEP and the request of the name of the Access to Information Panel members.
The UNEP Access to Information Panel (the Panel) has finalized the review of the two appeals in line with the Access to Information Policy. Following their review, the Panel submitted its report and recommendation to the Executive Director who concurred with the panel’s recommendations. The following is the outcome of the review by the Panel and the decision of the UNEP ED:
- Release of the License Agreement between Kayyros and the UNEP. Please find attached the redacted version of the License Agreement.
- Regarding your request to be informed of the composition of the panel members, UNEP confirms that the panel is properly constituted with three members, two of whom are UNEP staff members and one external member who is a staff of another UN entity. UNEP is not able to provide the names of the panel members.
Kindly note that UNEP considers both appeals closed. As previously indicated before, all requests should be addressed to Access to Information Desk via the unep-info@un.org mailbox. This work is overseen by Ms. Nancy Groves, Head of the Information Desk, who serves a contact person for questions and concerns related to the Policy.
Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
UNEP Access to Information Desk
