By Toby McIntosh
United Nations Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen has issued a decision that could significantly curtail access to information about the agency.
Concurring with the secret findings of a secret panel, Anderson said the UNEP transparency policy covers only “environmental information.”
This could prevent disclosure of information about the workings of the agency itself.
The decision denies access to UNEP notifications sent to governments about large methane emissions. But the outcome is at odds with a pro-transparency decision on the same subject in July 2024.
Back then, Eye on Global Transparency requested one document, which (after an appeal) was provided: a UNEP communication sent to Kazakhstan about a major methane emission.
But when EYE subsequently asked for the same communications sent to Kazakhstan over a period of 15 months, UNEP refused. EYE appealed.
A Pinched Interpretation of the Transparency Policy
In a March 6 denial, Andersen not only denied access the requested documents, but also narrowed the scope of UNEP’s Access to Information Policy.
She does so by saying that the policy “pertains to ‘environmental information.’ “
This is a restrictive reading of the policy. The policy says UNEP should make disclose “information related to its work” and “any information in the custody of UNEP.”
This is stated is the first sections of the policy:
- UNEP is committed to making information relating to its work, including environmental information, available to the public.
- The Policy is guided by openness. Any information in the custody of UNEP, in particular information concerning the work of UNEP in accordance with its mandate given by the General Assembly in resolution 2997 (XXVII) and other relevant resolutions (such as resolutions 47/190, S-19/2 and 66/288), including environmental information generated and maintained through programmes of UNEP, is available to the public, in the absence of a compelling reason for confidentiality in line with the exceptions to the Policy listed in paragraph 5 below.
The phrase “environmental information” appears, but in explanatory clauses that begin with the word “including.”
So environmental information is part of what should be disclosed, but not the only information covered by the access policy.
Andersen’s decision noted three types of environmental information. These are laid out in three sentences in the introduction to the UNEP Access Policy, not in the policy itself. In brief, the three types are: “the state of elements of the environment,” factors “used in environmental decisionmaking,” and “the state of human health and safety.”
Other clauses in the Access Policy describe what information may be withheld.
But Andersen did not rely on these seven “exceptions” in denying the request for communications sent to Kazakhstan.
In essence, Andersen’s decision could prevent disclosure about how UNEP functions. In this case, how its methane program is working.
Readers: For notification of new EYE postings please sign up for free using Subscribe in the right column. (No deluge, usually several articles a month.) Follow EYE on Bluesky @tobymc.bsky.social, Twitter @tobyjmcintosh or LinkedIn.
Denial Concerns UNEP’s Methane Program
UNEP’s methane program was designed to provide transparency about methane emissions.
The UNEP project is known as MARS, the acronym for the Methane Alert and Response System (MARS), run by the International Methane Emissions Observatory (IMEO) at UNEP. IMEO officials have stressed that transparency and engagement with emitters are key elements of their strategy.
Using satellite data, UNEP documents emissions. Since December of 2023, emissions data has been periodically posted online for public viewing.
UNEP also said it would contact government officials about emissions and offer to help. UNEP’s online spreadsheet indicates if a government has been informed. But the notifications themselves are not posted.
This outreach element of the program, working with governments, has not been going so well.
In November, UNEP revealed that that it had notified governments of 1,200 of major methane emissions, but got only 15 replies, a one percent response rate. This was documented in a UNEP report issued Nov. 15. (See EYE article.)
At a press conference on the report, Andersen suggested that the agency would provide more information on the notifications. She said the notifications should provide “greater awareness,” leading to “public pressure.”
She said, “The media will write about it and countries will understand that this something that cannot be swept under the carpet.”
Prior Disclosure of Same Material
The first methane emission notification made public resulted from an EYE request and appeal.
EYE on April 5, 2024, requested all communications with Kazakhstan about a large methane emission that occurred on June 23, 2023.
Initially, UNEP completely denied access to any documents. EYE appealed.
Two and a half months later, on July 1, 2024, UNEP disclosed one UNEP communication with Kazakhstan. The three-page document includes with images and data about three large emissions attributed to “an oil and gas well accident.” In it, UNEP requested additional information from the government.
UNEP declined to provide any replies from the Kazakh government, citing confidentiality, one of the seven exceptions in the policy. (See EYE article.)
Second Request Denied
EYE’s second request for communications sent to Kazakhstan about methane emissions was made on Oct. 22, 2024, for the period of July 21, 2023, to Oct. 22, 2024.
On Nov. 21, UNEP said, “In order to ensure that you receive the most complete response to your request, additional time is needed.”
On Dec. 6, UNEP sent a spreadsheet containing the information on Kazakhstan that is contained in the public MARS database.
UNEPs reply said, “UNEP’s IMEO shares environmental information on methane emissions with governments through its Methane Alert and Response System (MARS).” Note the use of the phrase “environmental information.”
UNEP’s response did not include the requested information: communications sent to the Kazakhstan government. EYE appealed on Dec. 10, 2024.
Secret Appeals Process
Appeals are allowed under the UNEP Access Policy, but unique among other international bodies with appeal processed, UNEP’s system is marked by two mysterious features. (See EYE article.)
First, UNEP does not disclose the names of the three members of the Access to Information Panel, which includes one external member. In 2016, UNEP issued a press release about the appointment of the first external member and other international information make such information public. But now it declines to say who the panel members are.
Second, the panel’s reports are not made public. Instead, the conclusions go to the Executive Director, who makes the decisions. In this case the reply was a seven- paragraph e-mail. (Text below.)
EYE has written before about apparent dysfunction in the UNEP process for handling of requests for information and appeals. (See October 2023 article and September 2023 article.)
Wider Implications?
By tying disclosure to only “environmental information,” Andersen may be laying the groundwork for denying requests about UNEP activities and operations.
EYE has used the Access Policy to obtain the minutes of meetings of a MARS advisory group.
In early 2023, EYE asked UNEP for a copy of its contract with Kayrros, a major company in the detection of methane emissions by satellite. In January of 2024, UNEP provided portions of the 12-page License Agreement, but with many sections blacked out, including virtually all of the material under the heading “Deliverables.” No information on the financial terms of the contract was disclosed. (See EYE article.)
Going forward, will meeting minutes and contracts continued to be disclosable? Were they “environmental information” and are they still?
Text of March 6 email from UNEP
Regarding your appeal dated 10 December, UNEP’s Access to Information Panel reviewed the points outlined in your appeal and submitted its recommendation to the Executive Director.
The Executive Director has concurred with the panel’s finding that you have fully received the environmental information as requested in line with the Policy.
(a) The state of elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) Factors, such as substances, energy, noise and radiation, and activities or measures, including administrative measures, environmental agreements, policies, legislation, plans and programmes, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment within the scope of subparagraph (a) above, and cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used in environmental decisionmaking;
(c) The state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) above.
As such, not all communications between UNEP and its Member States are subject to disclosure.
