The Requirement for E-signature
on an E-Request Is Wrong

If everyone has the right of access to information,
the respondent should not care who the requestor is

Diana Bancheva

In October 2003, Ivailo Hlebarov became a member of the team of the Environmental Association “For the Earth” as an assistant of the national coordinator of the CEE Bankwatch network in Bulgaria. Several months later, he undertook the coordination of the network. The Access to Public Information Act is a major tool in his work. In the beginning of 2004, after a training held by the Access to Information Programme, and armed with a handbook on how to get access to information, we started filing access to information requests. As successful tactics, he uses short and specific questions. He recommends that the issue is well searched in the Internet in advance of the request in order to formulate the question as clear as possible for the responding side. With the assistance of the AIP, Hlebarov has been suing the Sofia Municipality for refusals of information.

What are you doing as member of the “For the Earth” team and as a Bankwatch coordinator?

My work is related to projects that are funded or would be funded by international financial institutions or European Union funds. I am speaking about state projects that will operate with huge public money of the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the EU funds. When I started work at the “For the Earth,” only the pre-accession funds Phare, SAPARD and ISPA were operating in Bulgaria. I was monitoring which projects might cause environmental problems, and at our discretion, we were initiating a campaign for the ceasing of a project or for its implementation in a way that would not harm the environment and the people’s health.

Besides the campaigns on specific projects, we analyze project activities and results and the funding. Our last year analysis was measuring to what extent the structural funds in Bulgaria were used for energy efficiency and  renewable energy resources.

What does the analysis show?

The results were tragic – the information was scarce and heterogeneous. A lot of questions remained unanswered. We used the APIA because the obtained information under the law can be quoted. I filed two requests to the Ministry of Economics and Energy. I waited for two months for an answer, I went there personally, had meetings. Finally they gave me a floppy disk that did not work. The response to the second request, after more than two months waiting, was quoting the text of the first request. The two-month waiting was brave of me. I had a conversation with a legal officer from one of the ministries and I said that the deadline under the law was approaching and I would file a complaint. He smiled at me and made me understand that it was better not to file a complaint because I would see no information. I was also aware that after filing a complaint, a long term proceedings in the court would follow…. I needed the information within a month.

My experience is bigger with the Sofia Municipality against which we have two cases in the court. The one is older and is about the consultancy contract signed with a consortium of three companies which should have drafted a project for the future waste management system of Sofia. We requested the contract in the end of 2007. Now, it is February 2010. In two words, we are continuing the litigation for honor and glory because the process have ended long time ago. Even if they grant access to the information, the only thing we could do is to disclose it to the public and say that the municipality was wrong.

To what activities of the Sofia Municipality are these documents related to?

To the project of building an integrated system for management of household waste. This is a project that will be applying for European funds under the Operational Program “Environment.” We have been working on the waste management in Sofia for almost six years. According to the Aarhus Convention, the documents we have requested should be disclosed. These are the costs and benefits analysis and several other documents that will allow the citizens and the nongovernmental organizations to take an informed part in the process of decision making.

At that time the process was related to the approval of the environmental impact assessment of the project. We did not receive the requested documents. This is a common practice especially when we inquire about projects of high public importance or that involve huge amounts of money.

The Sofia project is for over 200 million Euros. It is related to a penalty procedure against Bulgaria. The municipality is in a hurry trying to catch up with the terms and conditions but is making a lot of mistakes which result in more litigation by us, by companies participants in tenders for the waste transportation or other services related to the waste management. We are not the only ones that are so to say slowing down the process. Information related to the project we present to the European Commission. We are counting on the fact that it should approve of the funding for this system and through that to improve the project. In the way it is made now, it will not cover some requirements set forth by the European legislation. Under the Directive whish was adopted in 2008 and will come into force in 2010, the percentage of recycled waste should be 50. We have made some calculations on the base of data provided by the Sofia Municipality and the result shows that the maximum possible amount of recycled waste till 2020 is 31 – 32%, which far too lower than 50%.

How did you get access to these data?

Initially, the Sofia Municipality uploaded information about the project in the Internet. Later, we started talking by means of the APIA, because when we asked for part of the documents on the base of which the final decision should be taken, we received an answer that those could not be provided because they were not finalized. Several months later, we asked how decisions are taken related to the project if the documents were not finalized. At that time, we requested access to the final version and they refused. We started litigation.

Are the waste collected separately recycled in Bulgaria?

Yes, but there are other problems in Sofia. On one hand, due to the crisis, a lot of companies have difficulties to recycle, because the purchase prices have fallen and it is not economically viable. There is also regress in the system for separate collection. The number of separate collection containers decrease all the time, not because they are stolen, but because the designated places for them are decreasing. We requested under the APIA the agreement between the municipality and the organizations for recycling of package waste. We waited the response for several months since the municipality had to ask the organizations for their consent to disclose the agreements. Out of five agreements, we received two, because the other did not respond to the request of the municipality. The law provides for the possibility the municipality to provide the agreements when its request was not answered. However, its principle is to disclose as little information as possible. We are currently analyzing the agreements. The separate collection system has been changed. Instead of the previously existing three containers system, the two containers system is introduced which results in the lower quality of the product that is to be recycled. We are now in contact with some of the companies. According to us, the separate waste collection is going back for the past year and a half.

What type of information is the municipality willing to disclose?

When we requested information related to the waste management project of Sofia, and the documents that would help us formulate a reasoned statement, the municipality refused access with the clear mind that they were creating obstacles for us. Later, they were providing information related to the separate collection of waste which is not a problematic issue. I am sure that if we criticize them in the media on that topic, they will stop to provide access to information. This is something that has happened not once during the years. Initially we received documents on a certain topic, and suddenly something changes and no access is provided. Indeed, there are institutions in which the access to information provision practices is at a high level. Most of them are influenced by the topics, however. If the topics are of public interest and covered by the media, the access is difficult or lacking.

Are the institutions responding to electronic access to information requests?

Only the European Commission. Here, an electronic signature is required. There was a moment I paid for an electronic signature, but I decided that filing a request with an electronic signature was wrong. Not everyone can afford an electronic signature, and this will discriminate against people with lower income. Simply, the signature in general is not important. The APIA does not put such a requirement. That is why I don’t use the e-signature for access to information requests. The Sofia Municipality requires an e-signature on requests filed through its electronic system. I have requested information by email from several institutions. I have received information by email, probably because the people know me. I have requested data from the head of a department in the Ministry of Finance. He knows what I am doing and why I need the information. Within several days, he sent me the information by email. I did not send a request. But this is something that happens rarely.

February 2010

This case is part of the book "Civil Participation and Access to Information (15 Years of the APIA, 37 stories of NGOs)" published by AIP within the implementation of the project “Enhancing the Capacity of Nongovernmental Organizations to Seek Public Information” supported with a grant under the NGO Programme in Bulgaria under the Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area 2009 – 2014 (www.ngogrants.bg).

The whole responsibility for the content shall be taken by the Access to Information Programme Foundaiton and it cannot be assumed under any circumstances that the document reflects the official stance of the  Financial Mechanism of the European Economic Area and the Operator of the Programme for NGO support in Bulgaria.