As UN Switches from Glass to Plastic Water Bottles & Cups, No Public Information

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 16 -- During the UN's $2 billion renovation and attendant relocations, not only was a decision made, at least initially, to eliminate all seats for the press and public in the interim General Assembly Hall -- the UN also shifted to plastic water bottles and plastic cups for the meeting rooms in apparent disregard of the environmental consequences.

  Here's a photo of the UN's new stock of plastic water bottles for meetings:

  Yesterday Inner City Press reported that after more than two months of protest by the Free UN Coalition for Accessof the loss of press and public seats in the GA Hall, the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management told it that media seats will now be provided.

  "We heard your question," a DGACM official said on the morning of August 15. So at the day's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked more questions:

Inner City Press: yesterday, I tried to ask a number of times, video of the stakeouts done by Ms. [Valerie] Amos and Mr. [Babacar] Gaye didn’t go online until at least after 8 p.m., so they couldn’t be used for stories. I’m aware that things happen and there’s a need for patience, but maybe if we could get a readout on this stress test. Are these videos going to be ready when the general debate time comes around, so there’s not an eight-hour delay? And the other question is actually more positive, I heard this morning from DGACM [Department for General Assembly and Conference Management], not DPI, that there will now be arrangements for some media seats to be provided in the [General Assembly] during that week. And I wanted you to confirm it in a more formal way, and also to make sure that those seats are not only for media traveling with the Heads of State, but some will be for resident correspondents here, whether on a lottery basis or how ever.

Deputy Spokesperson Del Buey: Well, I’ll have to check on that, Matthew.

  Twenty three hours later, there is no answer, either from Del Buey's Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary General, or from the Department of Public Information offices and the official, Stephane Dujarric, to whom the@FUNCA_info questions have been directed.

  Nor did DPI answer why they took down three Free UN Coalition for Access informational flyers that were on the bulletin board, installed after FUNCA pointed out the right to free speech and more than a one-party system. Public Information indeed. On August 15, the media was penned in a stakeout area without a work table, and was banned again from entering the so-called Turkish Lounge, which FUNCA has protested for more than two months. We'll have more on this.

  Meanwhile, DGACM whistleblowers have complained to Inner City Press of a change in UN meetings "set up" which they say is intended to reduce the UN work force and jobs. Until now, water has been served in glass pitchers.

  Now, the shift is made to plastic bottles, and plastic cups. Inner City Press is today publishing a photograph of a four-deep stack of the UN's water bottles, here. It's similar to the decision in the UN Cafeteria to use plastic and aluminum for plates and forks and spoons.

  The difference is that the cafeteria is run by Aramark (said to be preparing to charge big money to to the sponsors of a "UN Day" event in the Delegates' Dining Room on October 23). Meetings set-up, and the decision to switch to plastic, is a UN decision. Greening the Blue? Hardly. Watch this site.

   

UN in DC Tweets Out Below the Belt, Doesn't Reply to FUNCA Question, Just Deletes: UNsocial Media

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1, updated -- The UN Information Center in Washington DC sent out a tweet on Monday morning, “Interested in learning more about #UN events taking place in #WashingtonDC? The #UNIC calendar is your one-stop shop: http://bit.ly/1aV3IR.”

There was only one problem: the link was not to any UN calendar, but rather to a web site called penis-health-blog.com. We have saved the @UNICDC twitter page, here in case as is likely they change it. For now it's at https://twitter.com/unicdc/status/351672513547337728

Update: immediately after publication of this article UNICDC deleted its tweet, without sending any explanation to FUNCA. UNsocial media.

Update 2: after the above, UNIC DC tweeted this. 

"We've deleted a suspicious tweet form this morning. Don't click on any links from past 4 hours"

                    

  The Free UN Coalition for Access, which since its founding in late 2012 has engaged with and tested UN social media -- increasingly so after the Department of Public Information which runs the UNICs tried to order the censorship of even a single FUNCA sign on the office door of Inner City Press -- immediately replied to @UNICDC: “Please explain this link, even if you take it down: MT “@unicdc calendar is your one-stop shop:http://bit.ly/1aV3IR”

  But even an hour later, there had been no reply. This is how the UNIC's, and other UN social media accounts, work: they pump out information one-way, but don't respond to questions. This is UNsocial media.

   The "staff" page of UNIC-DC lists as director the ironically named Rodney Bent, and also one Liam Murphy (pictured here with Ban Ki-moon.)

  The UN's “Greening the Blue” twitter account did not respond on the carbon impact of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's travel, when asked by the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info.

  UNDP's Olav Kjorven didn't answer on his carbon footprint, nor on whether the UN system favors an Oceans SDG.

  UNDP is pitching the #Post2015 tumult in “194 countries,” because a video they paid for said it involved Rwanda and 193 countries. But when asked by FUNCA what the 194th country is -- Somaliland? -- they did not respond, but justdropped the 194 country claim for 750,000 people. (Then it returned, again unexplained.)

 It's a one way mirror, throughout the UN system. Watch this site.

  

UN Brags of MDGs But Dodges Online Questions of Oceans & the Future, FUNCA: Innovate Whose Future?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, July 1 -- The UN is bragging about the Millennium Development Goals, even as what's to come after is being fought about. 

  Last week Inner City Press wrote about Palau's and others' push for a post-2015 “Sustainable Development Goal” about the oceans. 

  On June 28, Inner City Press attended the UN's press conference in New York about the MDGs and asked about it. But the UN insisted that the briefing was embargoed until now, July 1, and that the participants could not be named. Why?

  Hardly any other journalists at the UN cared about the MDGs press conference. While the UN Correspondents Association almost cravenly goes to any and all briefing in order to say their name, this one, they missed. (The Free UN Coalition for Access thanked the briefers - who must remain nameless, by choice.)

  On the question of the oceans, they agreed that when the MDGs were agreed there was less awareness: not even carbon and climate change were the focus yet. They agreed with Inner City Press' critique of the urban slums data, not taking into account the shift of population toward the cities. (MDGs Report at page 50.)

But here is something wrong with the UN system and its supposed interface with the public on these issues. The UN's “Greening the Blue” twitter account did not respond on the carbon impact of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's travel, when asked back on June 21 by the Free UN Coalition for Access, @FUNCA_info.

  UNDP's Olav Kjorven didn't answer on his carbon footprint, nor on whether the UN system favors an Oceans SDG. (Inner City Press is told that Ban Ki-moon doesn't understand the concept and asked for a briefing.)

  UNDP is pitching the #Post2015 tumult in “194 countries,” because a video they paid for said it involved Rwanda and 193 countries. But when asked by FUNCA what the 194thcountry is -- Somaliland? -- they did not respond, but justdropped the 194 claim in favor of 750,000 people. It's a one way mirror, throughout the UN system.

 Palau by contrast and its partner the TerraMar project are reaching out and responding, ready to press for September 2014. Watch this site.  

Before Obama Climate Speech, UN Gushes But Won't Estimate Its Footprint, Censors

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 25 -- In the run-up to US President Obama's climate change speech on June 25, Inner City Press from the UN participated in an embargoed background briefing by self-described Senior Administration Officials.

  They fielded questions from the largest of media about the Keystone pipeline and the role of EPA.

  But UN officials were already gushing, before the call, during the embargo, as if they knew what would be announced.

  Olav Kjorven, for example, tweeted on Sunday, the day before the call, that “Obama will announce regulation of CO2 from existing power plants on Tuesday.” But when he was asked, by the Free UN Coalition for Access, for an estimate of the carbon impact of his own travel, he did not respond.

  The UN, when asked the same with regard to Ban Ki-moon, did at least respond, with a Note to Correspondents. But that said they don't keep track, of Ban in particular.

  Early on June 21, based on questions the UN has left unanswered to many requesters, the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN's “Greening the Blue,” which had been bragging about carbon reduction, “Can you / UN estimate Ban Ki-moon's entourage's travel emissions?”

  Greening the Blue uses social media, but which not answer this question from FUNCA's Twitter account, here. So at the June 21 UN noon briefing, FUNCA co-founder Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: there is something called Greening the Blue, I have tried to ask them directly and haven’t received a response, whether the UN’s Office of the Secretary-General estimates the carbon footprint, the carbon effects, of his travel, which obviously is quite necessary, but can you disclose what that the quantity is and whether it is in any way offset?

Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey: Well, we’ll try and get that information for you, Matthew.

   Six hours later, as the UN made other demands on Inner City Press and FUNCA (the very sign of which the UN and its partners have tried to ban), the following was emitted by the UN as a note to all correspondents:

In response to a question about efforts to offset carbon footprint at the United Nations, the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General has the following to say:

We do not have specific estimate of the Secretary-General’s travel, but we do estimate regularly the United Nations staff’s total carbon footprint as well as the share of air travel. According to the most recent Greening the Blue report, launched on 19 June 2013, the total emissions of 8,185 staff members at the United Nations Headquarters estimate 63,059 tonnes (CO2eq), of which 48 per cent is caused by air travel.

  On the question of Ban's travel impact, the UN did not have or provide an answer. But on the question of air travel, ironically, the same week Ban's Department of Public Information was tweeting about its multimedia partnership with the airline Royal Air Maroc, see here with model plane.

  The response – which did not provide the basic requested information about Ban's travel and is online in full here – added in a different font, as if an additional argument, that “[r]ecent renovations to the UN Secretariat building in New York were designed to reduce energy consumption by 50%.”

  In the new offices, at least for the press, lights go on automatically even if one does not want them. Meanwhile DPI has devoted a lot of energy to trying to order Inner City Press to take a simple Free UN Coalition for Access sign off the door to its office, while allowing the old UN Correspondents Association to have two prominent signs, a big meeting room, a separate office and even a locked UNCA pantry in which it stores its wine glasses.

  Here is how close UNCA and the UN Department of Public Inforamation are: after UNCA first vice president Lou Charbonneau of Reuters said an internal UNCA document would not be disseminated beyond, three minutes afterward he sent it to the UN's Stephane Dujarric, "you didn't get this from me," here.

  

  Likewise, the UN Censorship Alliance announced limitations of use of the UN  Security Council stakeout as media workspace, which is how new media coverage of the Council is possible, conversing with diplomats going in and out while writing a series of short pieces about a range of topics. The US takes over the Security Council presidency on July 1. What will they do about it?

   Watch this site.

At UN, Ban Ki-moon's Carbon Footprint Incalculable, Of Airline Partners & Waste, FUNCA Sign & Space

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 22 – The UN talks about carbon reduction and austerity, but is vague about emissions while not only allowing but requiring waste.

  Early on June 21, based on questions the UN has left unanswered to many requesters, the new Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN's “Greening the Blue,” which had been bragging about carbon reduction, “Can you / UN estimate Ban Ki-moon's entourage's travel emissions?”

  Greening the Blue uses social media, but which not answer this question from FUNCA's Twitter account, here. So at the June 21 UN noon briefing, FUNCA co-founder Inner City Press asked:

Inner City Press: there is something called Greening the Blue, I have tried to ask them directly and haven’t received a response, whether the UN’s Office of the Secretary-General estimates the carbon footprint, the carbon effects, of his travel, which obviously is quite necessary, but can you disclose what that the quantity is and whether it is in any way offset?

Deputy Spokesperson Eduardo Del Buey: Well, we’ll try and get that information for you, Matthew.

   Six hours later, as the UN made other demands on Inner City Press and FUNCA (the very sign of which the UN and its partners have tried to ban), the following was emitted by the UN as a note to all correspondents:

In response to a question about efforts to offset carbon footprint at the United Nations, the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General has the following to say:

We do not have specific estimate of the Secretary-General’s travel, but we do estimate regularly the United Nations staff’s total carbon footprint as well as the share of air travel. According to the most recent Greening the Blue report, launched on 19 June 2013, the total emissions of 8,185 staff members at the United Nations Headquarters estimate 63,059 tonnes (CO2eq), of which 48 per cent is caused by air travel.

  On the question of Ban's travel impact, the UN did not have or provide an answer. But on the question of air travel, ironically, the same week Ban's Department of Public Information was tweeting about its multimedia partnership with the airline Royal Air Maroc, see here with model plane.

  The response – which did not provide the basic requested information about Ban's travel and is online in full here – added in a different font, as if an additional argument, that “[r]ecent renovations to the UN Secretariat building in New York were designed to reduce energy consumption by 50%.”

  In the new offices, at least for the press, lights go on automatically even if one does not want them. Meanwhile DPI has devoted a lot of energy to trying to order Inner City Press to take a simple Free UN Coalition for Access sign off the door to its office, while allowing the old UN Correspondents Association to have two prominent signs, a big meeting room, a separate office and even a locked UNCA pantry in which it stores its wine glasses.

  On Friday evening, as the (non) response on Ban's travel was sent out, DPI was informing Inner City Press that it planned to now put three separate media in the two-desk office behind the FUNCA sign. This was presented for the first time in front of one of the media.

  Now a series of questions have been raised. Why is an UNCA Executive Committee member next to Inner City Press given a private, one-media office? Why is the UNCA president, Pamela Falk, given a separate office? How can the UN put three media at two desks?

  The answer to the later is waste: media which have not requested UN space are told they can only get a so-called “White P” entry card if they request from the UN space they do not want. When asked about this wasteful absurdity, the answer is that these are the UN rules. But the UN makes its own rules.

  In the case of the new rule against signs – or signs other than UNCA's – the UN partnered with UNCA to put out a rule banning all competition. 

  Likewise, the UN Censorship Alliance announced limitations of use of the Security Council stakeout as media workspace, which is how new media coverage of the Council is possible, conversing with diplomats going in and out while writing a series of short pieces about a range of topics.

  The UN has been told that any removal of the FUNCA sign would be unacceptable censorship, an attempt to ban a new dissenting group or network; after a week of waste, it has been asked to confirm that it will not seek to force the removal of the FUNCA sign while leaving UNCA's up.

   The DPI official responsible for much of this, promoting the ban on dissent both below and above himself in DPI, now follows FUNCA (after previously blocking Inner City Press). What will come of this? Watch this site.

At UNSC After 3 Week FUNCA Fight, UN Installs 2 Benches, Sign and Issues Remain, Including Banning of Press & Public from GA

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 – Two press benches were put in front of the UN Security Council on Friday morning, after three weeks of journalists having to stand all day or sit on the floor, and a month of advocacy by the Free UN Coalition for Access for a media worktable and electrical outlets.

  While certainly better than nothing, the two benches seat five reporters. It's strange, because the Department of Public Information's response to FUNCA's request that the media worktable be restored has been that DPI would not serve only five journalists, but rather the entire resident press corps.

  Since not all journalists want to cover all Security Council consultations, having a table that sat five or six was never a problem. It should be restored, and FUNCA will continue to push for it, having already delivered a full page of signatures on a petition on just this issue to DPI.

  The problem has been a new set of Media Access Guidelines that DPI agreed with the old UN Correspondents Association's Executive Committee this month. FUNCAcommented against the Guidelines on May 21 and since: the draft tried to say that reporters should only be at the stakeout when there was a formal Council meeting.

  FUNCA pointed out that there are bilateral meetings at the beginning of the month, and meetings by the Council president with non-Council members. Inner City Press reports and will continue to report on these.

  That line was dropped, but UNCA agreed or obtained other provisions it wanted, including trying to outlaw FUNCA fliers and even, it seems or seemed, the single FUNCA sign in the third floor press floor. Photo here, by FUNCA co-founder Luiz Rampelotto. 

   On this floor, UNCA has two signs, a big meeting room, a separate office and even a locked pantry in which it stores its wine glasses. All this while journalists don't have a space to work, and while the press and public have been banned, other than a few photographers, from covering the General Assembly.  FUNCA will continue fighting. Watch this site.

Footnote: Confronted with an inordinate DPI focus on a simple Free UN Coalition for Access sign, after voluntarily making concessions on the posting of fliers, FUNCA has expanded its advocacy for greater access at and openness by the UN. 

  This now includes on the record social media / Twitter (@FUNCA_info, click here), at UN Peacekeeping missions like that in Liberia, and UN entities like the Alliance of Civilizations and even “Greening the Blue,” which has been asked to disclose the carbon footprint of Ban Ki-moon's entourage and its traveling. Now, Ban's deputy spokesperson has been asked. We'll see.