Agreed. One of the strategy documents by some British consultants (on CA, recently, cannot refind link) advised against a vision of public conflict between AGW and others, saying that it was best to project that the AGW position was normal and accepted and not to acknowledge that different views existed. (This could be part of the tactics you are fighting).

Well, CA certainly changed that. Persistence was part, but there is sunshine there too. It is on the increase. People like Ian Castles above are held in high regard by those who know of his work. Your ability to attract calibre people is part of the sunshine.

“I have learned from a response to a request I have made under the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1983 (FOI Act) that Miss Sarah Hendry. Head of Global Atmosphere Division, DEFRA, made a powerpoint presentation to a workshop entitled “The Role of Economic Modeling in Climate Change Policy”, organised by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Research Economics (ABARE) at the Boat House by the Lake, Canberra, Australia on 8-9 May 2003.

“ABARE has denied me access to a copy of Miss Hendry’s presentation on the grounds that “The document, or the exempt part of the document, is of such a nature that its disclosure under the Act would found an action, by a person other than the Commonwealth, for a breach of confidence” (s. 45, FOI Act).

“Under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000, I seek access to a copy of Miss Hendry’s presentation and of any correspondence held by DEFRA imposing or accepting conditions of confidence in relation to that presentation.

“I also seek access to any report that Miss Hendry may have made on the workshop, and to copies of other presentations made to the meeting by climate change negotiators or modellers.”

ABARE’s response to my Australian FOI request also disclosed that the Bureau held copies of powerpoint presentations, papers or notes presented to the workshop by Paul Fauteux, Director General, Environment Canada – Climate Change Bureau, Canada; Harald Dovland, Deputy Director General, Ministry of Environment, Norway; Mr Ken Okaniwa, Director, Climate Change Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan; Prof. John Weyant, Director, Energy Modeling Forum, Department of Management, Science and Engineering, Stanford University; James Edmonds, Chief Scientist, Joint Global Change Research Institute, University of Maryland; Richard Richels, Technical Executive, Electric Power Research Institute; Prof Shunsuke Mori, Department of Industrial Administration, University of Science, Tokyo; and Professor Priyardashi Shukla, Public Systems Group Indian Institute of Management, India.

The Schedule to ABARE’s response indicated that access to all of these documents had been denied under s. 45 of the FOI Act, although the Bureau inadvertently provided me with copies of the powerpoint presentations by Dovland, Edmonds and Richels. Each of the slides in James Edmonds’ presentation is stamped “DRAFT”, but there is no sign on the face of any of these presentations that they had been classified as confidential.

The participant list indicates that other participants in the workshop included Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chair, IPCC; Luiz Gylvan Meira Filho, Senior Scientific Adviser, UNFCCC; Francisco de la Chesnaye, Lead Economist, Environmental Protection Agency, United States; Mr Tetsuya Shimokawa, Section Chief, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan; Kuniaki Makiya, Director, Office of International Strategy, Ministry of the Environment, Japan; Mr Chan-woo Kim, Director, Environment Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea; and Ms Sharron Came, Senior Analyst, Treasury, New Zealand.

It is not clear why any agency which is subject to FOI legislation should choose to withhold copies of any of these papers that they may have in their possession. I’m therefore led to suggest that nationals in other jurisdictions consider making FOI requests to agencies which sent representatives to the Canberra workshop, along the lines of the request I’ve made to DEFRA. If the documents were not classified, as appears to be the case, it is difficult to understand why agencies should deny access to them. It is relevant to note that, to my knowledge, several of the workshop participants have left government employment and are now employed by private enterprises which have interests in climate change policies.

Missing document procedures, was involved in one in our second highest Court. An understanding Judge and a top Queens’ Counsel sorted it, but I have felt the frustration. I can only repeat what you know, that
(a) stonewalling is a strategy that you have to meet with persistence
(b) nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition (Monty Python, translation – the force of your argument can sometimes be unexpected and fruitful).

Again telling you what you probably know, but see if it is possible to start action to extend Statutes of Limitation(s) or their equivalents in critical matters.

Another Sir Humphrey to fight – “anything is possible, but nothing is possible for the first time”.