UIG evaluation 2013

For the second time since 2008, UfU has conducted a broad-based study on the practice of the Environmental Information Act using the retrospective impact assessment method. The topics ranged from species protection, electrosmog in public transport, drinking water pollution, municipal waste recycling, contamination of the food chain to traffic noise. The inquiries were directed at all levels of administration and all federal states. In the study, 40 federal authorities and 30 state authorities or administrative districts were contacted nationwide. 59 inquiries were sent to municipal authorities with a duty to provide information and 76 to private bodies. The results of the study are sobering. While around 40% of 178 inquiries were answered in full in 2008, the rate in 2013 was only 24.3% with 205 inquiries. In 3/4 of the cases, citizens’ inquiries remained unanswered or incompletely answered. This points to a severe enforcement deficit at both public and private bodies obliged to provide information. In 55 cases, applicants received no answers at all in 2013. 51 of the 205 requests were rejected, even though other bodies with a duty to provide information that received the same questions considered themselves responsible without further ado. The quality of response between public and private bodies obliged to provide information is almost identical. 50% of the private recipients responded at least partially to the questions asked, while the rate for public bodies was 48%. The requests were evaluated according to predefined procedural criteria such as the type of response and reply to the requests, forwarding, reasons for rejection, information on legal remedies, etc. In addition, specific aspects of the content of the individual topics were analyzed. 18% of the rejected requests from private bodies with a duty to provide information argued that they were not subject to a duty to provide information under the UIG. Other private bodies only provided answers to the questions posed on a voluntary basis. This shows that private bodies with a duty to provide information are still predominantly opposed to a legal obligation to provide information under the UIG. A positive aspect of the analysis is that the answers were sent quite quickly. In some cases, the legal deadline of one month was significantly undercut.