By Toby McIntosh
The International Maritime Organization has asked delegates, and the media, to refrain from live-tweeting while attending at a virtual committee meeting on shipping and the environment.
The admonition came after an anonymous tweeter, @imoclimate, disclosed contemporaneously how countries were voting.
The new ad hoc policy, which an official at another UN agency called “strange,” appears to be successfully inhibiting live-tweeting by the media. One reporter called that “a real shame.”
The offending tweeter’s identity remains unknown, though the content suggests the author is a critic of the IMO committee’s Nov. 17 decision concerning climate-warming emissions from ships.
Environmental groups have uniformly condemned the committee’s proposal as inadequate. NGO representatives were among the 1,428 participants registered for the meetings of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), being held virtually Nov. 16-20.
While IMO committee meetings are open to the press, and to observers from industry and nongovernmental organizations, they typically get little mainstream media or social media attention. The specific views and votes taken by the delegates for the member countries also usually fly under the media radar. This is changing, however. The impact of ship emissions on climate change has raised the profile of IMO deliberations.
The tweets by @imoclimate describing in real-time how countries were voting generated a negative reaction among some delegates. The representative from Saudi Arabia complained about the tweets during the meeting, according to several sources (there is no public recording of the virtual meeting).
Responding with sarcasm directed at the Saudi delegate, @imoclimate tweeted:
Nothing at all to say about combatting climate change, i.e. your whole job in being present at these talks?
While tweeting during meetings is new at the IMO., live-tweeting by journalists and participants in national and international meetings has become increasingly common.
The idea of banning it drew a surprised reaction from reporters and officials at other international organizations contacted by EYE.
“That would be a strange situation if reporters were invited into a meeting and then told not to live tweet,” commented a United Nations official who asked to remain anonymous.
One reporter covering the MEPC meetings lamented the tweeting restriction. Anastassios Adamopoulos, who writes for Lloyd’s List and tweets as @Anastassios_LL tweeted on Nov. 19:
It is a real shame that live tweeting from @IMOHQ meetings is restricted because the ongoing debate on this $5bn R&D shipping fund is a perfect example of how complicated/convoluted work on GHG emissions initiatives, especially with $ involved, can be
You’re all missing out!
Chairman Urges No Live-Tweeting
The request not to tweet during the IMO MEPC meeting was made orally Nov. 17 by committee chairman Hideaki Saito of Japan.
The goal, explained an IMO spokesperson, is to maintain an environment which will ensure a free and open exchange of views on subjects.
So far, the identity of @imoclimate is unknown, but revocation of credentials to attend meetings could be the punishment if exposed.
For journalists, the IMO’S rules for the media do not specifically ban live-tweeting, but the message has been heard.
While noting the lack of as specific provision on live-tweeting, the IMO spokesperson pointed out to EYE that the rules for media coverage include the same rationale used by Chairman Saito, “… to maintain an environment which will ensure a free and open exchange of views on subjects….”
Adamopoulos in a tweet said, “MEPC chair has asked not to live tweet and IMO media policy says “IMO reserves the right to deny or withdraw media accreditation if… personal or public conduct is not consistent with reasonable expectations of media professionals, including on social media.”
He wrote further criticizing “the vague threat of ‘reasonable expectations’ to silence journalists from covering what are stated government positions in a plenary session (not policy being reworked and made in an Intersessional).”
Challenging the policy, Adamopoulos also tweeted Nov. 19:
So that “conduct” is set by the IMO depending on what governments and orgs attending feel like it should be. And it can be different for each meeting. I have asked IMO for further legal advice, and I will let you know. Hopefully I am reading this the wrong way
The threat is not entirely hypothetical. In the past, several reporters have been cautioned, and one banned for two years, for violating IMO media restrictions.
Such discipline resulted from a rule that has been changed recently.
The IMO had prevented reporters from quoting delegates by name without getting permission. Under an amendment adopted last year, however, reporters now can attribute statements to the country delegates without checking the quote. (See a 2019 EYE article about the changes. And a 2018 EYE article about the restrictions.)
Sampling of @imoclimate Tweets
The live-tweets that generated the controversy came from @imoclimate which describes itself as “a global network of analysts tracking progress on a UN climate deal for the shipping industry, one knot at a time. We are *NOT* affiliated to the IMO.” Established in February of 2017, @imoclimate has 2,683 followers.
About a dozen tweets by @imoclimate disclosed the positions taken at the meeting by delegates. The thread began:
@IMOHQ delegates are congratulating themselves on designing a policy that shaves 1% off shipping industry’s giant 1 billion tonnes annual CO2 output – in a decade’s time Complete denial of what scientists say is necessary We’ll list countries below as they announce support
Specific tweets included:
Greece, world’s largest shipowning country, supports. No surprises there. Netherlands supports, but “we had hoped for more. More is needed to deliver on the goals of the Initial IMO Strategy.”
Ireland: is disappointed in the level of ambition, and lament the loss of a constructive enforcement mechanism from the initial proposal. Nevertheless, Ireland supports the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI
The string of tweets is cited in an article about the outcome by the trade publication Splash247. For other coverage of the substance of the talks (Not EYE’s mission) see The Independent, Forbes, and the officialIMO press release.
Perhaps in reaction, another tweeter popped up with the opposite slant, @IMOsense, billing itself as “Tracking IMO targets for the shipping industry, one misinformed mind at a time. *NOT* affiliated to the IMO.” It has three followers.
Tweets included:
Finally! Common sense prevailed @IMOHQ. So much for the blatant lies and bogus “facts” peddled by @IMOclimate and @ShipSort. A historic day for the IMO and a big step towards achieving the 2030 target.
Anther tweet by @IMOsense provoked @IMOclimate to say: “Ok, you’re just here to slander without providing evidence. Blocking you now, goodbye”
@ImoSense replied: “I have been blocked by @IMOclimate. It is resounding evidence that they run away from logical discussions!”
Progress Made on Document Disclosure
On another transparency front, some progress has been made on the transparency of documents.
Although disclosure of documents in advance of IMO meetings remains at the discretion of the member submitting a document, more documents seem to be getting released in advance.
The public docket for the MEPC meeting shows 124 documents. But according to those with access, there are 143 document available to those — delegate and observers, but not the media — with access to the complete, nonpublic docket. That’s an 87 percent disclosure rate.
The policy change making disclosure discretionary was made in July of 2018. (See EYE article.) An EYE spotcheck in 2019 indicated that about three-fourths of documents submitted for a May 2019 MEPC meeting were made available pre-meeting.
EYE tweets as @tobyjmcintosh
