By Toby McIntosh
The UNESCO panel that handles appeals under the access to information policy has refused to release any information about its first decision, requested by Eye on Global Transparency.
However, the seven-person panel will consider recommending “the proactive disclosure of its decisions and reasoning” in the future, according to an April 16 letter to EYE.
One reason it could not release its first decision, the panel said, was because it had not written as actual decision.
Instead conclusions and rationales were part of the panel’s “deliberations.” These deliberations “were not formally distinguished from the final decision, and no separate, public-facing decision document was prepared.”
The panel said it could not release any record of the deliberations, because the access policy “exempts internal deliberations and communications from disclosure to protect the integrity of the Panel’s deliberative process and confidentiality where required.”
The panel also said disclosure “could reveal the 2023 appellant’s identity, either directly or indirectly,” invoking the exemption on personal privacy.
(Text of UNESCO April 13, 2026 letter)
Readers: EYE sucks at social media. For reliable notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. No deluge, usually several articles a month on a variety of global transparency topics.
No Use of Redaction
Redacting the requesters’ name, or releasing portions of the requested document, was not an option, the panel said.
“The current Policy does not provide for redaction or anonymization of appeals documents, nor does it address public disclosure of appellant identities,” according to the letter.
However, the access policy does not seem to prohibit the use of redaction and implicitly suggests it’s a possibility when it states that UNESCO “may partially or wholly deny a request.”
Reforms Hinted At
Redaction may be made possible in the future.
The letter says, “The Panel may recommend establishing standards and procedures for such appropriate anonymization and/or redaction for appeals documents where the applicant consents to public disclosure.”
This falls short of suggesting that the panel, which is also constituted as an advisory body on UNESCO’s access policies, would address whether that UNESCO should routinely consider redaction when handling requests. Instead it seems suggest that specific redaction rules might be created only for handling panel decisions.
The letter cautions that any recommendations the panel makes “may require consultation with the UNESCO Member States” and would apply only prospectively.
The letter was signed by Jennifer Linkins, the Assistant Director-General for the Sector for Administration and Management, who also serves as the Chair of the Access to Information Panel. The decision was unanimous by the seven-person panel, made up mostly of UNESCO employees. (See previous EYE story on the initial denial.)
The letter also says that the panel “may recommend updating the Policy to include a consent mechanism for requesters to opt into public disclosure of their identities.”
And it says:
The Panel may recommend the proactive disclosure of its decisions and reasoning, and the publication of summaries of appeal requests, with due regard to confidentiality considerations. This may entail publishing information in anonymized or redacted form in order to protect personal and other confidential information.
UNESCO in 2023 revised its policy without public consultations and without following some of the advice it gives to nations as the lead UN agency on access to information policy. (See EYE article.)
End Result: No Explanation for Initial Request Denial
EYE requested a decision that is only referenced generally in the 2023 annual report on access to information. So the outcome here leaves much unclear.
The report described the subject of the denied request only as: “Request for access to WHC – ICOMOS November 2020 Technical Review Document.” For more clarity, EYE also requested “access to the original request,” which the panel also denied.
The panel’s denial of EYE’s requests means that it has shielded not only whatever reasoning it provided to the requester, but also information about what was requested.
UNESCO’s brief summary of the request makes it difficult to understand what was kept secret.
However, it was likely a document prepared by or for ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites), an advisory body that helps UNESCO makes decisions about the UNESCO World Heritage List. “WHC” probably refers to the World Heritage Committee, the multilateral decision-making body on heritage site matters that meets annually, or the World Heritage Center, the UNESCO secretariat for the world heritage site process.
In any case, UNESCO’s reasons for denying whatever request for information was made are now permanently secret.
