Sweden in UN spotlight over pesticide 'secrecy'

Such access could harm Sweden's participation in international cooperation, the argument from the authorities went.

But this itself might run counter to the UN Aarhus Convention, signed by Sweden, 44 other countries and the EU. In the case of emissions to the environment release of information should be the default option, that convention states.

The documents held back in Sweden are relevant to a forthcoming decision whether to approve the pesticide chlorpyrifos or not.

As reported by EUobserver, a team of journalists has described: how chlorpyrifos causes brain damage to human foetus and newly-born children, how the present EU-approval is based on studies made and filed by the producer, and how the producer's study has been challenged by experts in environmental medicine and ecotoxicology.

In August, these allegations were echoed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), whose experts recommended zero tolerance for the disputed pesticide in the future.

The present EU-approval expires in January 2020.

To prepare for the forthcoming decision by an EU committee in December, Spain and Poland have since 2017 been preparing a proposal for other member states to discuss - and approve or reject.

This proposal was held back in Sweden - despite of the country's legacy of public access since 1766, and in spite of the country's ratification of the Aarhus Convention. Due to an EU directive adopted in 2003, that convention is binding law in all EU member states

This central document kept back by Sweden was released by EFSA in October - turning the usual pattern upside down. (Sweden has for years been seen as an example on transparency, in contrast to other EU member states and the EU institutions.)

Not necessarily so any longer, it seems.

During an open session with the Aarhus compliance committee in Geneva, the Swedish government argued that the release of the document by EFSA made the complaint about Sweden irrelevant, and should be deemed inadmissible.

The committee did not agree.

This means the Swedish government now has five months to respond to the allegations of being too secretive, and refusing to comply with the UN rules.