A Call for IGO Policies on Public Access to ln~or~ation

Alison Hitchens”

There is much discussion in research literature regarding the information produced by inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) and what publications are available for use in libraries. At the same time, there is little discussion of the information policies of IGOs regarding access to IGO information. In fact, the freedom of information debate, with few exceptions, has not been extended to include IGOs. Although ICOs are made up of governmental bodies, the role of the IGO seems to be that of facilitator for state policy

formation. This role fails to recognize that IGOs produce information of their own accord and make decisions which affect peoples in the member states. This article surveys the issue of access to IGO information and discusses how national debates can be extended to the IGO level. It shows both explicit and impiicit information policies

with case studies from the environmental information field: the European Union’s (EU) directive on environmental information. and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Three issues emerge: these are varying levels of access to IGO information, varying levels of IGO information policy, and a relative paucity of research on the subject. The principles of accountability, transparency, and public involvement are being made explicit more frequently in the documents of IGOs. However, a continuing gap between explicit and impIicit policies must be bridged.

Although there is some disagreement regarding their definition, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) can be defined as bodies which are “based on a formal instrument of agreement between the governments of nation states; .[they include] three or more nation states as parties to this agreement; [and have] a permanent Secretariat performing ongoing tasks.“’ They are collectors and producers of information which is used in the administration and decision making of IGOs and their member gov~mn~ents. This info~ation is important to a wider audience of academics, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and citizens of member countries who are affected by IGO projects at a local

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 14, Number 2, pages 143-154. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of repr~uetion in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

1-M GOVEKNMEN-I INFOKMATION QUAKTEKLY Vol. lJ/No. L!lW7

level. For this reason, it is necessary to consider the dissemination of tG0 inforn~tion in

info~ation policy discussions.

PAUCITY OF RESEARCH ON IGO INFORMATION POLICY

There are several difficulties regarding research into information access and policy at the

IGO level. First, restrictions on information may not be explicit; that is, an IGO may alert

users to what information is available but not state what type of infatuation will not be

distributed. For example. catalogs of sales publicati~)ns tend not to include internal and

nonpublished documents. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that there are no external

systematic studies of IGOs which are not United Nations (UN) related.’ As a result, in

many cases it is difficult to figure out which materials carz be accessed, let alone know the

policies on restrictions.

Library literature is not much more illuminating as it tends to detail what documentation

that libraries receive. and it describes distribution systems of more accessible IGOs such as

the UN. Any discussions on lack of access focus on nonrestricted documents which are

hard to receive due to poor (organizational infrastructure or a lack of biblio~r~~phic control.

The literature does enable one to infer implicit information policies from the bibliographic

control and systems of distribution. Another means of determining access to information issues is to examine the complaints

of researchers and NGOs regarding their use of IGO information. The drawback to this

approach is that information is found in snippets or passing comments. Such complaints are

not usually the focus of a published paper. The freedom of infor~~~ation literature provides more insight, but it discusses the public

access issue at the government or state level. According to this literature, IGOs act as

facilitators for national policy discussion and implementation, and provide a forum for

international debate on telecommunications and the free flow of information.

USE OF 1GO INFORMATION

lnf~~rrnati[~n is a resource which can have econor~iic. political, social, scientific, or strategic

value. It is used for research, planning, decision making, and other purposes. IGOs, as large

research and administrative bodies. are major producers of information. Their information

is mainly designed for use within the organization. Internal documents include finance,

budgets, personnel, interactive, and logistics information.’ Working documents aid in the

administration and design of projects. These documents are essential to the implementation

of IGO programs at the state level.3 Thus, IGOs are both producers and users of IGO

inforniati~)n. Member states also use IGO information. Some d~~cunlents are auton~atically distributed

to member states. and others are prepared at their request. IGO materials cover all subjects

and geographical areas and offer a broad perspective on issues. As such, they have

significance beyond the original intent of materials.’ The Orpanisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD) states: “international documentation services are

not only responsible to international organizations or governments, but without forgetting

/CO Pdioes on Public Access 14.5

the order of priority, they are also responsible to the world of research.“6 In other words,

IGO documents are of vital importance to the academic community. This observation is supported by interviews conducted by Peter Hajnal with various

researchers and diplomats.’ Among the questions he asked were: what is the importance of

IGO material to their work; how did they became aware of and obtained relevant

information; what difficulties did they encounter in that process; and what suggestions do

they have for improving access. He found that some IGO information was vital to their

work, either due to its quality, timeliness, or international scope. IGOs produce information

which cannot be found in other sources. There was some variation in the ease with which

those interviewed gained access to needed information, but many of them relied on

contacts within IGOs for their information. The need for “nondocuments” and sources such

as verbatim reports was noted. Some of the difficulties encountered in gathering the

information included: poor distribution of documents, IGO secrecy, and insufficient access

to IGO databases. IGO information is also useful for NGOs and the citizens of the member countries who

are affected by IGO activities on a local level. Information in these circumstances has two

main functions: monitoring of IGO activities and policies and public involvement. The

monitoring function is significant in the environmental field in which large and highly

organized institutions, such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Foundation, act as

international watchdogs of both government and IGO activities. For example, Greenpeace

produced a scathing report of World Bank activities regarding the treatment of the

environment and the lack of public involvement in projects.* The public participation aspect is important because IGOs provide a wide variety of

services and research that affect the standard of living, security, and welfare on a local

level.” In addition, the issue of IGO accountability can be raised in light of the fact that

IGOs comprise states and are ultimately supported by the taxpayers of various

countries. ‘O

EXPLICIT INFORMATION POLICIES-THE FREEDOM

OF INFORMATION DEBATE

Accountability and public involvement are essentially democratic expectations. The

relationship among knowledge, power, and democracy has long been recognized.”

Although access to information itself does not ensure participation in projects, without it no

discourse can effectively take place. It can be argued that the provision of information is

the first step towards consultation, openness, and accountability.‘2 Currently, the access to information debate occurs at the national government level.

Although Sweden has had freedom of information legislation since 1766, such laws are a

modem legislative trend with most having been enacted since the 1960.~‘~ Laws governing

access to information can be divided into two categories. On the one hand, they can guide

the determination of what constitutes an official secret and prevent disclosure. On the other

hand, they can establish disclosure as the general rule, shifting the burden of proof from the

citizen to the government. I4 Essentially, these laws are explicit policy statements regarding

public access to and the use of information.

While access to information is usually defended using arguments for democratic

freedoms and scientific progress.” secrecy is usually defended by the justification of

pr~~tecting the public interest.‘” Do~~~estic~~lly this can mean nlaintaining the efficiency of

the governing process or the privacy of groups and individuals. In terms of external affairs,

this justification usually concerns national security, for example, the restriction of military

information. ” Information may also be restricted to protect economic interests. Is

Developing countries are concerned that the Western world promotes freedom of

information in order to control world markets. I 9

Countries are also concerned about other issues which must be resolved before the free

flow of information can be internationally espoused. These include intellectual property

rights, data security, transborder data flows, censorship, cultural protectionism, technology

transfer. and info~ation as a state resource rather than an individua1.s right.‘(’ Because these concerns tend to address issues of national security and maintenance of

economic competitiveness, they do not really pertain to the information produced by IGOs.

For this reason, IGOs may be the perfect vehicles by which nations can debate the free flow

of inforniation. Indeed. articles discussing international informati~~n policy limit the IGO

role to fostering of information systems and telecommunications and providing a forum for

information policy discussions, for example. the United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) General Information Programme.” In fact,

Robert Williams defines intern~~tional infornlation policy as “those efforts by national

c ~‘(~vern~~ents and IGOs to develop official policy or law for the trans~llissi~~n of ~nfo~ation

from outside rzutiot~trl borders.“2’ The only other suggested role for 1GOs is one of

“alerting public opinion to global problems and activities affecting all (human) kind,“23

which is a call for an educational role, rather than IGO openness. Alth(~ugh it is logical that most teleconlmunicati~~ns, data security problems, and

economic protectionism issues be discussed at the nationai level, there is no reason why the

issues of democratic rights and scientific progress cannot be discussed in relation to IGO

information. This does not mean that there is no need for restriction on IGO information.

On the contrary, IGOs produce and analyze much data which reflect the economic,

military, and social status of nations. Some of this information is confidential or must be

classified for a certain number of years. However, there is a need to create explicit IGO

policies regarding restrictions and access.

Fortunately, there have been some recent trends in the recognition of the need for

transparency. ~~ccountability, and c~~nsuttation. I-Man Cleveland remarked that “more and

more decisions are made with wider and wider consultation or they don’t stick.“” The

words transparency and accountability can be found in the documents by or about IGOs,

including those concerning the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

(GATT), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FA0).‘5 The UN

Committee on Information has been dealing with some of these issues since 1979.

Although many of the resolutions regarding the Committee involve openness of nations,

NGOs, and businesses, the Committee evaluates the UN’s own distribution policies.”

However, there has been criticism that the Committee has been more committed to its

responsibility to the media than with public access to information.~7 Nonetheless, the

reports and resolutions of the Committee are examples of explicit IGO information policy.

/CO Pollees on Public Access 147

CURRENT RESTRICTIONS ON INFORMATION

Explicit policies are not the only source of data regarding IGO information policies. One

can make inferences from the examination of distribution policies, bibliographic control

practices, types of documents circulated, and the timeliness and quality of available

documents. These comprise the implicit policies of IGOs. Distribution depends on the target user population** and the infrastructure of the IGO,

for example, whether it has a depository library system. Large organizations such as the

UN have well-established distribution systems complete with information centers and

depository libraries, while many small IGOs have limited sales and distribution systems.29

Another factor in distribution is the type of documents that are distributed. Some IGOs that

do not distribute nonpublications are GATT, International Maritime Organization (IMO),

International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Telecommunication Union (ITU),

World Health Organization (WHO), World Intellectual Property. Organization (WIPO),

and World Meteorological Organization (WMO).” For example, documents of the GATT

are restricted to member governments, and although it has a distribution system for

publications, the titles are not many.3’ Only 5 percent of the World Bank’s printed

materials is available externally. The World Bank’s information policy of 1993”*

expanded the range of documents available, including pre-project information, and created

publicly available Project Information Documents.“’ However, much of the

documentation is still subject to government screening. Within explicit information

policies, the designation “restricted” is usually given to documents with the justification of

confidentiality.j4 Some policies include a declassification plan, allowing access to

documents after a specified period of time, for example, project reports of the UN

Development Program (UNDP) and documents of the EU.‘” There are four basic types of IGO materials: (a) archival records; (b) internal

administrative documents; (c) internal project documents; and (d) publications.36 Archival

materials are likely to be available in an older IGO with an established archival program. Internal administrative documents are produced and used in the day-to-day operation of

an organization. These are usually very limited in distribution, often only transmitted to

staff and perhaps to member countries. Other internal documents, the working documents

and project proposals, are of more interest to a wider community of users. The extent to

which these documents are distributed depends on the organization, as discussed in the

distribution policy discussion. For example, the World Bank recognizes a need “to

preserve the integrity of the deliberative process and to facilitate and safeguard the free

and candid exchange of ideas between the Bank and its members.““’ Certain documents

are considered confidential and only available internally to aid the decision-making

process. Although it is understandable that, in some cases, working documents are restricted due

to reasons of confidentiality, potential users argue that there is often no consistent and

logical reason for classifying documents.38 Regarding the World Bank, Robert Schaaf states that “confidential materials of the Bank and [IMF] such as decisions on loans and

credits should not be public documents, but it is unfortunate that no regular declassification

programs exists for less sensitive materials and that more details of their research work are

not made available.“39

148 (XXVERNMENT INFCIRMATION QUARTERLY Vol. 14/No. 2/1097

The next type of materials is the publications which are intended for public use. However, publication price and quantity can inhibit access. For example, one researcher commented on the rising price of publications4” Furthermore, the quantity of materials published can be low: the GATT’s accumulative number of titles as of 1990 was approximately 40.“’

Apart from distribution Williams asserts that the most difficult part of IGO acquisitions is “simply finding out about the existence of the publications, documents, and data files.““’ Without bibliographic control, the material is invisible. For example, Hajnal reports that it has been estimated that approximately 12,000 World Bank documents are not under bibliographic control, and are more or less invisible.‘” This point is important in pointing out the difference between implicit and explicit information policies. For example, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which will be discussed further in a case study, only answers requests for specific documents, not general information questions. Therefore. a policy may include broad access to materials, but poor bibliographic control means that, in reality, access is denied.

Finally, the timeliness and quality of the info~lati~~n can indicate policy. For example, whether or not a project report is available in draft form or whether the inf~)~ation is only released once decisions have been made. This has significance regarding the degree of openness and consultation. If the explicit policy is to invite public participation, at what point in the proceedings is the information available? For example, critics of the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) information policy state that project information is received anywhere from 8-60 days before final project approval, with obvious

consequences for any successful mobilization of active participationJJ These critics also reported on the quaiity of the IFC documents. For example, the

‘.Environmen~al Review Summaries” released for Category B projects provide little information. These are usually a two-page summary of the potential impact of the project with little or no information regarding local ecosystems, local socioeconomic situations, and broader regional impacts. Quality complaints are also raised regarding the official publications of IGQs; these publications are often watered-down, “glossy” versions of IGQ

actions and research.3” Some of these problems may be more the result of finances and infrastructure than a wish

to restrict info~ation use. This aspect is becoming apparent as IGOs move onto the World Wide Web and increase access to online databases.Jh New technologies allow cheaper production of more information in a more timely manner. For example, during the 4th World Conference on Women, the UN Web page was updated daily.” Despite these improvements. electronic access should not be an excuse to avoid producing or addressing explicit information policies. Indeed, new technologies and means of distribution create an increased demand for policy development. The following case studies highlight some of the informati~)n policy issues, using more in-depth examples.

CASE STUDIES

One: European Union (EU) Environmental Information

It has been said that the EU is “virtually unique among international organizations in the impact it has on the lives of the citizen of its member states.“‘” In response to this reality,

ICO folmes on Pub/k Access 149

the EU provided daily press releases, info~ation centers, and a depository library system to meet the needs of researchers and citizens. At the same time, the EU has been accused of being undemocratic, for example, pushing regulations through the Council of Ministers without publishing draft proposals and without proper consultation.“9

With these two contrasting accounts of EU accountability and transparency in mind, one can look at EU’s information policy regarding access to environmental information as

stated in the EC Directive of June 7, 1990.“’ At first glance, the directive is promising: it espouses the right of citizens in EU member states to have access to environmental info~ation which is produced by public authorities. In spite of this sentiment, the directive

does not include EU bodies in its definition of public authorities. In other words, the directive grants access to the environmental information produced by any member state at the national, regional, and local level. A citizen of France can request information from the

German government, for example, but there seems to be no provision for access to any information which may have been gathered or produced at the EU level. In essence, the EU promotes openness among member states without addressing its own transparency problems.

As an IGO is greater than the sum of all its parts (member states), it is difficult to accept that, in drafting such regulations, the EU would not take the opportunity to look at its own

information production. This is especially significant in the environmental field in which problems can transcend national borders. Here is an example of the current state of access to information discussions, which place the IGO in the role of facilitator for nation states

rather than highlighting the IGO’s own responsibilities regarding access, consultation, and accountability.

Two: The Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Originally, the GEF was set up in 1990 as a three-year joint project of the World Bank, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and the UNDP. The fund is intended to aid projects

that protect the global environment and promote sustainable economic growth, and to cover the costs of activities in the areas of climate change, biological diversity,

international waters, and stratospheric ozone. GEF projects must be country driven, inco~orate consultation with local communities, and, where appropriate, involve nongovernmental organizations in project implementation.5’

In terms of information policy, Pratap Chatterjee reports that officially the GEF “threw open all of its documents to the public, consulted NGOs on each and every project [... and] offered Southern countries an equal say in their decision-making.“‘* This openness seems to be reflected in the GEF Web site which has gained considerably in content in 1995. It includes information about the GEF and eligibility for loans, answers to Frequently Asked Questions, the GEF bulletin, which summarizes council meetings, and,

more recently, lists of GEF publications and working papers which are available on request. A GEF project portfolio is currently under construction.s3 Furthermore, the implementation document for the restructured GEF includes a provision for an Annual Report on GEF activities.54 Thus, the overall policy of the GEF is one of openness, access, and consultation.

However, this apparent openness does not alert one to the actual lack of access to GEF information; that is, its implicit policy is quite different. First, much information is not

publicly available for projects which are attached to an existing World Bank loan.“’ To a

certain extent, confidentiality provisions are understandable. However, an internal Bank

memo in 1992 stated that even GEF project inf~~rlnation would be confidential.‘~ This is

important considering that 60% of GEF projects are tacked onto existing loans” The

significance of these restrictions are shown with an example given by Chatterjee.“’ The

U.S. $4.75 million project to protect the coral reefs in the Red Sea was attached to a

World Bank loan to promote tourism in Egypt. However, this tourism is the biggest threat

to the coral reefs in the region. Yet. even the GEF’s own Scientific and Advisory Panel

was refused access to the associated larger project when asked to examine the GEF

project. The same discrepancy occurs in the consultation process. Greenpeace reported on a

GEF project in Costa Rica. developed primarily by the UNDP. The only project

documentation available to the public was a two-page reference sheet and a three-page

description, material which was “insufficient to adequately assess the range of

development activities contemplated in the project.“5” The Centro Cientifico Tropical,

one of the local NGOs chosen to administer project funds, told Greenpeace that it had not

received any documentation. Furthermore, according to the Ministry of Natural

Resources, no public meetings were held, despite the fact that 80 percent of Costa Rica’s

indigenous population lives in the affected area. This example is in obvious contrast to the

principles of the GEF.

However, changes may be occurring in the GEF to clarify and address these problems.

For example, the project descriptions available on the Web site are already longer than the ones made available in Costa Rica in I99 I. Furthermore, a draft proposal, which was

discussed at the April I996 meeting of the GEF council, addresses information disclosure

and public pa~icipation,~~’ Although this document mainly concerns public ~nv~~lvenient in

GEF projects, it is partially an inf~~rmation policy. As defined in the document, public

involvement includes information dissemination. consultation, and stakeholder partici-

pation. Information dissemination is further defined in paragraph 6 as “the availability and

distribution of timely and relevant information on GEF-financed projects. including

notification, disclosure and public access to such ~nfo~ation.” Thus, the document

reiterates the principles of GEF accountability, transparency, and public involvement, and recognizes the role of information dissemination in this process. Unfortunately, the

document in its draft form is vague in relation to the form of the information to be disclosed

and the manner in which it is to be disseminated. Moreover it provides no details regarding

publicly available versus confidential information. Another weakness of the document stems from paragraph IO which stated that *-the

responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country,” thus transferring

the responsibility from the IGO level to the national level. This places the IGO in the

facilitator role regarding info~ation policy and keeps the access to information debate at the national level. As a result, although the GEF espouses participation, transparency, and

accountability, the application of these principles will be inconsistent across nation- states ‘I’ The proposal does require the GEF to undertake various means of facilitating . . effective public involvement, but again the suggestions are vague. It remains to be seen

whether or not the GEF can strengthen this policy, thereby narrowing the gap between its

explicit and implicit information policies.

/CO Policies on Public Access 151

CONCLUSION

This article has only provided a brief overview of the issues involved in gaining access to

IGO information. Nevertheless it has shown the need for research beyond the national information policy level, revealing the importance of including IGO information in the

freedom of information debate. Proponents of access to information argue that the free flow of information is essential to scientific progress and is required for democratic

government. Democracy means government by the people; the people use information to

monitor government activities and for effective public involvement in decision making. Like govemments, IGOs produce and collect info~ation of academic and public interest,

and the effects of their actions are felt locally. In addition, their members are nation states

that are responsible to local citizens. As governments increasingly make decisions and

agreements at the international level, there must be an expansion of the scope of the information and documents included in information policy discussions. That expansion should incorporate IGO information.

IGOs vary greatly in their levels of public access to information and in the form of their

info~ation policies. In fact, many of their policies must be inferred because they do not

seem to be available for public scrutiny. In addition, in some cases in which IGOs have written information policies, there appears to be conflicts between the stated policy and the

realities of the distribution system, the bibliographic control, the timeliness, or the quality

of the information. As shown by the rapid increase in content on the GEF Web site, the World Wide Web

may provide an effective and relatively cheap means of improving the dissemination of

IGO info~ation. Documents can be created in computer-file format and can easily be

made available to multiple users on the Web. This style of dist~bution is quicker and more cost-effective than traditional publishing. Within a reduction of costs, such as paper costs,

documents can be longer and a wider range of document types can be produced. Documents can also be updated frequently. Bibliographic control and visibility of

documents can be improved through simple means, such as listing document titles and providing a public information center address, or in a more interactive format with hyper-

text links to full-text documents. The Web can provide answers to the problems of

timeliness, bibIiographic control, and distribution of documents. As libraries and schools begin to provide Internet access, the range of possible distribution is increasing. However,

new technology does not necessarily improve the quality of the information available;

more does not equal better. In addition, the authority of the information may be affected by the ease with which computer files can be altered. In the rush to use the Internet as an

information policy problem solver, these concerns should not be overlooked. Access to IGO information is essential to discourse and accountability at the global

level. IGOs need to recognize the needs of their wider audience and acknowledge some accountability to people who are affected by the projects of IGOs. As seen by the

problems of public involvement in GEF activities, this recognition must be backed up by clear and detailed policies on information disclosure and restriction. Explicit policies will ensure public access to quality information in a timely and consistent manner. IGOs with existing policies need to examine their current state of information dissemination and tighten the gap between the ideals of their explicit policies and the realities of their implicit policies.

(;~VERN~~EN~ lNF(~RMATi~N QL!ARTERLY Vol. 14iNo. L;lYY7

7.

8.

IO.

II.

Ii.

14.

IS.

16.

17.

I x. 19.

10.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

21

12

‘3 14

25

26

27

28

29

30

31,

32

33.

34,

3.5.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43,

34.

45.

46.

47.

48.

Reynolds, ~‘Bibljo~r~tphie Guide to Issues of National and International ~;ov~rnnlent Information Poli-

tie\.” ~~~l,~,~~~n~~~z~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ftei+cn. 1 1 (Janu~iry/Febr~lary 1984): I-39: Schaaf. .‘Information Policies

of International Organizations:” Surprenant. “Global Threats to Information:” Wolfe. “A New Interna-

tional Information Order.‘.

OECD. Hondhook o!f Iqfi~nntrrrort: Jacques Tocatlian. “Information for Development: The Role of

Unesco’s General Information Programme.” 1Jtww~ Joumrrl of lnfimwrtion S~~IC~CY~. Lihrrrritrr~.vhip c~nti

Archi~~~.~ A~l,,lini,stnrrior1. 3 ( 198 I ): 147; Unesco. Mtrrty ti~iccs: Williams, “The Role of Inter_eovernmental

Organizations.”

Williams. “The Role of inter~o~~ernm~~~tai Organizations.” p. 2. (italics added).

L~nesco. “Many Voices. One World.” p. 122. Cleveland. “The Twilight of Hierarchy,” p. 188.

See, for example. Peter 1. Hajnal, “IGO Documents and Publications: Volume. Distribution, Recent

Developments and Sources of Information.‘* C~oi~r~rrrntc~rzr Pnhiic~tion.s Rn-reu 9 (March 1982): 124; IMF. External Relations Department. “47. IMF Publication\.” in IMF; 50 Fm/.$. (Washington. DC: IMF

Publications Services, 1994); Oliver Long, Michael Calhoun. Rodney de C. Grey. W.B. Carmichael,

Del-ek Jones. Hugh Corebet. Nam Duck-Woo, Gerhard Fels, Rachel Waterhouse & Martin Wolf, Public

.S~‘rurrn~ r$Pm/rc~riort; D~~ntcstic Poliq 7i_cl~z,s/~rrcnc:v cd Trcrde Lihetuli;cr/inn (London: Gower. 1989);

Bob Shavelson. “Just Watch What Free Trade Will Do: Learning from the NAFTA Dehate and Looking

Ahead to GATT,” Jrtunml c$ ~f,.s~;(,jf~~, fZt$i~ntt 13 (Winter 1993):28-29; WHO. Rqwt-1 o/ rhr Fwtd ttrrd

A,~ricuffirw ~~l~s~t~zi~(i!i~ltl of lhr Urzited ~~ili(~~l,s md ihc WHO Cti~~c~itwc~~ on Food Slorrdcirds. Chni-

utft irr Food. md Fwd Trrrdr (Rome: WHO. 1991 ).

See, for example. LJN General Assembly, 50th Session. Rq~‘r! r!f’/Iic Conrnzirrre o,i I~fiwrn~rtio~t Supp.

No. 21 (A/50/21) (Official Record. New York, 1985).

Interviewee from the interviews conducted by Peter I. Hajnal, September-October 1994.

Peter J. Judge. “fntroductory Report for Panel I: Sources of International Documentation,” tn .%>urc~e,s.

Oqmixtim. Cilrli:aih~ of I~~trrnci~ioncil L)oc~ut~lerffrrlir,n, p. 89.

Williams. “Usurp the In~ormati~ln Resources of the Global Village.” p. 4.

Schaaf~ “lnformatiol~ Policies of Internatiotlal Or~~lni~ations.” p. SO.

Ibid.. p. 55.

World Bank. Tlrr Workl 5drtk Pa/icy on Di.rc/osure qf Infimwtion (Washington, DC: World Bank.

1994).

These documents are avaiJable from the Public Information Centre (PIG) which can he accessed on the

World Wide Web: (http:Nwww.worldbank.or~/htmI/pic/ENVIR.htmI).

HaJnal, “IGO Documents and Publications,” p. 123.

Ibid.

Ibid.: Schaaf. *‘Information Policies of international Orgutizationu.” p. 5 I.: Williams, “Using the Infor-

mation Resources of the Global Village,” p. 3.

World Bank. 7%~ ELilrli BrmX- Poiic:v ilrt f?i.s&~.surc of l~?#ilFr~~i~;~~~. p. 4.

EM. Auburn, “United Nations Documentation and International Law,” in .%IMK.CS. Orgf~ni,-rr!ir>n. (/rili-

ztrrion or In/rmr~fitmtr/ Doc~unrmtcrtion, pp. 259-60; Interviewees in Peter 1. Hajnal, “The User’s Per-

spective.”

Schaaf. “Information Policies of International Organizations,” p. 57.

Auburn, “United Nations Documentation and International Law.” p, 2%.

Schaaf. “Information Policies of International Organizations,” p. 55.

Williams. “Using the Information Resources of the Global Village,” p. 4.

Hajnal. “IGO Documents and Publications,” p. 126.

WBlfFC Info. Policy Alert posted by Rrch Winkel on the Activists Mailing List. November 14 1995

factiv-l@mizzoul.missouri.edu).

Interviewee in Peter 1. Hajnal, “The User’s Perspective,” p. 287.

Lievrouw, “Information Resources and Democracy,” p. 353: Interviewees from the interviews conducted

by Peter I. Hajnal, September-October 1994.

UNDP Web page for the 4th World Conference on Women (http://www.undp.org/fwcw/dawI.htm).

Elmarie McCarthy, “The Role of European Documentation Centres tEDCs),” Aslih Pmcredinp. 43

(June 1991):203.

(;OVEKNMENT INFOKMATION C~CJARTEKLY Vcd. 13:No. 2~1’)‘);