The Access Initiative

Topics: Access to Information

Mandatory disclosure can make natural resources work for the people

Will African communities ever become the beneficiaries and owners of their mineral resources, asks Tholakele Nene

The question set the tone of the 2018 Alternative Mining Indaba, held in Cape Town in February, under the theme “Making Natural Resources Work for the People: Towards Just Legal, Policy and Institutional Reforms”.

The more I listened to regional stories from activists in our neighbouring countries talking about how decades of mining policy development still leaves Africa’s people sidelined when it comes to benefit sharing and access to information, the more I realised the importance of fighting for mandatory disclosure.

Dr Ayoa Graham, executive director of the Third World Network in Ghana, spoke about how extractive laws in Africa are “defective” when it comes to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. There is an absence of cost-benefit analysis, he said, and no research about what minerals we have, what they are worth and how Africa can benefit from its own resources.

Graham emphasised the importance for communities of understanding how the revenue generated from the mining of minerals is used, and where it is being used.

“In the absence of cost-benefit analysis, communities are left to deal with mining companies for compensation. We should be moving to a regime where the state should take responsibility for the compensation of people and treat them as part-owners of the resources”, he said.

Lack of transparency

In the South African context #MineAlert has documented complaints from mining-affected communities that the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of various mining laws by the Department of Mineral Resources is near absent.

We have interviewed communities in coal-rich Mpumalanga to find out whether Social and Labour Plans (SLP) have facilitated benefit sharing and found there are still community members who had no idea of what an SLP is, let alone where to get a copy that they can use to hold a mine to book on promises made and not delivered during public consultation processes.

The argument is that, if mining companies are not voluntarily sharing crucial documents such as financial reports and SLPs with the general public, they not only take away the public’s right to access information that could assist communities make informed decisions and benefit from profits made from Africa’s minerals, they also reduce the chances of being held to account by limiting transparency. This makes it easier for mining companies to dig up the minerals and take the lion’s share of the profit, leaving the breadcrumbs for communities to wrangle over.

Mandatory disclosure

“In South Africa the current transparency regime regulating the private sector, including the extractives industry, is focused largely on enhancing information disclosure to shareholders or investors, rather than more broadly to all stakeholders which will include the public and local communities,” found a research report on the legislative and regulatory regime, published by the Open Society Foundation-South Africa (OSF-SA).

The research investigated the limitations and prospects of various institutions that oversee the extractives industry, including their powers to enforce compliance. It also analysed 30 laws, including the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Mineral (PAIA) and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), which are often seen as the cornerstone of transparency and justice in the extractives industry.

“There were very limited disclosure rules relating to ownership, operational and financial information,” the report concludes.

The MPRDA, for instance, provides that the holder of a mining right or mining permit must, at the registered office or place of business of such holder, keep proper records of mining activities and proper financial records in connection with these activities. Furthermore, the holder needs to submit records such as progress reports to the regional manager.

Section 30 of the Act says that this information may be shared with any persons as part of exercising the right to information. However, the Act prohibits disclosure where the information has been supplied in confidence.

The difficulty of accessing crucial information on extractives was highlighted by Publish What You Pay South Africa in a case study on Sedibeng Iron Ore. The organisation is working on a mandatory disclosure campaign that would see stronger legislation promoting public disclosure of mining documents such as financial reports.

International best practice

In 2017 Canada implemented an Extractives Sector Transparency Measures Act that requires all Canadian registered and listed extractives companies to disclose payments to governments in Canada and abroad. This has led to hundreds of companies publicly disclosing reports detailing payments to government by Canadian extractives companies.

Is it not time to look at similar legislation in South Africa?

Tholakele Nene is an Associate of Oxpeckers Investigative Environmental Journalism and manager of the #MineAlert app, which allows users to track and share mining applications and licences across South Africa

4 activistas ambientales son asesinados cada semana. Un nuevo acuerdo regional podría mejorar la situación en América Latina y el Caribe

En un pintoresco pueblo situado en las colinas colombianas, Isabel Zuleta toma la palabra frente a una multitud. La policía, vestida en uniforme militar, los respalda mientras Zuleta habla sobre el derecho al agua, las preocupaciones de la comunidad sobre nuevos diques en el río Cauca, el cual usan para la pesca y otras necesidades, y las inundaciones que ha causado la represa hidroeléctrica de Hidroituango. Muchos temen que los funcionarios del gobierno estén ignorando sus preocupaciones y solicitudes de compensación.

Aunque esta manifestación y las tantas otras que Zuleta ha organizado han sido pacíficas, su trabajo no es sin conflicto. Como líder de Movimiento Ríos Vivos, un grupo dedicado a proteger los ríos de Colombia, organiza foros públicos para que las comunidades puedan expresar sus preocupaciones en relación a represas y minas. También hace lobby con el gobierno para que éste divulgue información sobre los efectos ambientales de este tipo de proyecto y organiza protestas pacíficas. Por su trabajo en defensa de las comunidades y el medio ambiente, Zuleta ha recibido numerosas amenazas de muerte. Otros miembros de Movimiento Ríos Vivos han sufrido difamación, hostigamiento y vigilancia. Hace solo unos años, dos activistas del grupo fueron asesinados.

La violencia contra los defensores del medio ambiente es prevalente no solo en Colombia, que se encuentra entre los tres países con mayor número de asesinatos de defensores, sino en todo el mundo. En 2017, casi cuatro defensores ambientales fueron asesinados por semana en su empeño por proteger sus tierras, su fauna y sus recursos naturales. América Latina es la región más peligrosa—más del 60 por ciento de asesinatos de defensores en 2016 ocurrieron en sus pueblos remotos o en las profundidades de sus bosques tropicales—mientras que las amenazas contra defensores ambientales están creciendo en el Caribe también.

Negociaciando un acuerdo jurídicamente vinculante para mejorar la democracia ambiental y proteger a los defensores

A medida que un creciente número de organizaciones luchan para elevar el perfil de los defensores ambientales y demandar que los gobiernos tomen medidas para reducir la violencia en su contra, gobiernos y grupos de la sociedad civil de América Latina y el Caribe están negociando el Acuerdo Regional sobre Acceso a la Información, Participación Pública y Acceso a la Justicia en Asuntos Ambientales, también conocido como LAC P10. Si se adopta como un acuerdo jurídicamente vinculante, requerirá que los gobiernos establezcan nuevas normas para alcanzar el Principio 10, conocido como el principio de democracia ambiental de la Declaración de Río sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. Estas normas aumentarían el acceso de las personas a la información ambiental (como datos de contaminación del agua o concesiones mineras), mejorarían su capacidad para participar en la toma de decisiones ambientales y les ayudarían a exigir que compañías y otros intereses rindan cuentas por acciones que perjudican a comunidades y el medioambiente.

El LAC P10 también incluye requisitos que los gobiernos protejan a las personas que buscan participar en los procesos de toma de decisiones sobre infraestructura, reduciendo así los riesgos que enfrentan los defensores ambientales. Estas estipulaciones innovadoras incluyen:

  • Garantizar un entorno seguro para las personas y organizaciones que promueven y defienden los derechos humanos en asuntos ambientales, para que estén libres de amenazas, restricciones e inseguridad;
  • Tomar medidas para reconocer, proteger y promover todos los derechos de los defensores ambientales; e
  • Implementar medidas para prevenir, investigar y sancionar ataques, amenazas o intimidaciones contra defensores ambientales.

Desde que Chile inició las negociaciones del LAC P10 hace más de seis años, más de 20 países se han sumado al proceso. Del 28 de febrero hasta el 4 de marzo de 2018, estos países se reunirán una vez más en Costa Rica para finalizar los términos y decidir de una vez por todas si el acuerdo será legalmente vinculante.

El actual borrador propone que al menos ocho países deberán ratificar el acuerdo para que éste entre en vigor. Será fundamental que los gobiernos que previamente indicaron interés en un acuerdo vinculante firmen el tratado lo antes posible para incentivar a las otras naciones. Organizaciones de la sociedad civil de toda la región están solicitando a líderes regionales, incluyendo Brasil y Argentina, para que apoyen el acuerdo. Si las negociaciones son insuficientes, el LAC P10 no será jurídicamente vinculante, convirtiéndose en poco más de una guía voluntaria que los países podrán implementar—o no.

El acuerdo es especialmente importante en Brasil, Guatemala, México, Honduras, Perú y Colombia, que han sido algunos de los países más peligrosos para los defensores del medio ambiente y la tierra en los últimos años.

Que una persona más muera por proteger el medio ambiente es demasiado. Es hora de que los países den un paso adelante en la defensa de los defensores.

Protecting Forests with an Unexpected Legal Tool: Freedom of Information Laws

This blog, written by Jessica Webb, Carole Excell and Rachael Petersen,  originally appeared on Insights, World Resources Institute’s blog

Every year the world loses 13 million hectares (32 million acres) of forests, an area about the size of Greece. A critical way to stem this forest loss is to make concessions data about commercial activities that drive over 60 percent of global deforestation more transparent. Without data transparency, it is virtually impossible to tell how well companies are complying with concessions agreements, distinguish between legal and illegal deforestation, and bring those responsible for illegal deforestation to account.

Unfortunately, getting this kind of information in many countries is not easy, as a new study from WRI shows: countries with over half the world’s forests lack comprehensive, accessible information on concessions. Concessions for commercial activities, such as mining, logging and agriculture, are typically allocated to private companies by authorized government entities on lands legally owned or held in trust by the state. This information is critical to enforcing agreements that protect forests.

A recent example is Indonesia, which has some of the world’s richest rainforests and some of its highest deforestation rates. But figuring out the details of Indonesian forest exploitation can be as challenging as it is essential, as a recent Supreme Court decision indicates. In response to a civil society group’s information request, the high court determined that the Ministry of Land and Spatial Planning must hand over detailed maps of the land on which oil palm companies have been licensed to operate. This ruling is a huge step toward greater transparency in the management of Indonesia’s expansive natural resources. It gives journalists, civil society groups and the public the information they need to hold the government and the private sector accountable for deforestation.

Laws that protect citizens’ rights to access information and promote transparency may be a key to protecting and sustainably managing the world’s forests. The WRI study, Logging, Mining and Agricultural Data Transparency: A Survey of 14 Forested Countries, finds that not only are Freedom of Information (FOI) laws effective in getting access to forest information, but countries with FOI laws tend to disclose concession data more proactively than countries without them.

3 Ways to Provide Concessions Data

The study surveyed concessions information for mining, logging and agriculture, noting the different ways this information was made available: proactively, such as through an online data portal; reactively, through an FOI request, or through ad hoc or informal means. Proactively available data is most desirable, as this means it is publicly accessible without the need for requests. Information requests can be an important mechanism to get concessions data if there is no proactive disclosure, and are preferable to no access at all.

Of the 14 heavily forested countries surveyed, eight have FOI laws: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Russia and Peru. Researchers tested how these laws were implemented by submitting FOI requests for concessions data, including contracts, maps, lists of permits, ownership information and spatial data. These requests were at least partially successful in all countries where FOI laws were tested.

Researchers were most successful gaining full access to mining data. Four countries provided partial access to both logging and mining data. Agricultural concessions were the most difficult to access in all surveyed countries, where only two of six requests were partially granted (in Indonesia and Liberia). While cost can sometimes be a barrier to accessing official government documents, most information requests in this study did not charge a fee. 

In addition to the relative effectiveness of information requests, the study found that governments in countries with FOI laws release concessions data more proactively than do countries without such laws. For example, the governments of Brazil, Canada and Peru proactively provide data for all sectors for which they grant concessions and have an FOI law, and Mexico, Colombia, and Indonesia, provide proactive data for at least some concessions data. On the other hand, Madagascar, Myanmar, Cambodia and Malaysia lack FOI laws and provide no data proactively.

Though FOI requests can be an important way to get information, larger issues remain. There is still a lack of comprehensive information about where land investments are being made for logging, mining and agriculture in all countries. The study highlights the need for:

  • Adoption of comprehensive FOI laws in countries that lack them now;
  • Civil society to increase use of FOI laws to obtain documents as part of the strategy to monitor and protect forests;
  • Governments to facilitate greater proactive access to concession data by increasing coordination across ministries and between federal and local governments;
  • Donors to invest in building capacity for governments to collate, digitize and share concessions information proactively through online portals and information requests;
  • Voluntary partnership agreements and relevant transparency initiatives should encourage the disclosure of spatial concessions data and ensure standardization across countries.

Even though the Supreme Court decision in Indonesia is a promising move, there is more work to do. It’s time for countries with concessions on forested lands to expand access to concession data and make it priority for immediate action to support enhanced forest monitoring and land use planning, to reduce conflict and to send a message of transparency and accountability to international investors, donors and advocacy groups.

 

President Trump’s First Week: Is Environmental Democracy in Jeopardy?

During the new president’s first week in office, the Trump administration took actions that could threaten inclusive decision-making on environmental issues—what we refer to as “environmental democracy”—in the United States:

  • On Monday, the administration instituted a “media blackout” at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), prohibiting staffers from publishing news releases, blogs, social media posts and new web content.
  • Similar actions were taken at other agencies, including curtailing of communications at the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Health and Human Services and with the National Parks Service.
  • On the same day, the president stated that he plans to “cut regulations by 75 percent, maybe more” to make it faster for businesses to move projects forward.
  • On Tuesday, he issued an executive order to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, without consulting with the State Department and bypassing further public consultations.
  • On Wednesday, after proposing and then rescinding a directive to remove EPA’s climate change webpage, a spokesperson for the EPA transition team announced that political appointees must review scientific findings on a “case-by-case basis” before releasing them to the public, including routine pollution monitoring data.
  • These actions could not only undermine the government’s ability to protect the environment and public health, but they also erode the foundations of good governance: transparency, public participation and accountability.

Transparency

Citizens can neither understand nor participate in environmental decision-making without having access to objective, scientific information and data. Sound and effective policymaking within government should be based on the best possible information and evidence. Further, the free flow of information is essential for allowing people to reveal wrongdoing and hold officials to account. As a public institution, the EPA is legally required to provide access to critical environmental information, such as air and water pollution monitoring reports, Environmental Impact Assessments, compliance and enforcement data and climate data. Doing so ensures that Americans “have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risk.”

Beyond communications, it is problematic to require that political appointees review the agency’s scientific data—including regarding climate change—before releasing it to the public. This will be the first time that an administration’s appointees will screen such studies.

This directive undermines the EPA’s established Scientific Integrity Policy, which “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

The administration’s actions also obstruct an integral component of democratic policymaking. To meaningfully engage in political processes, citizens must have access to accurate information that has not been editorialized or modified. Only with unbiased facts can they understand and shape key decisions that impact their local environments.

Public Participation and Accountability

Public participation is the bedrock of environmental democracy; yet the new administration’s plans may undercut this pillar of good governance. While meeting with business leaders during his first day in office, President Trump declared that the government must eliminate regulations and expedite permitting processes for large development projects. Effective, efficient rule-making should be a goal for policymakers, but it must not come at the cost of public participation.

Many of the EPA’s and other agencies’ procedures—such as air and water discharge permits, waste cleanup plans and Environmental Impact Assessments—require a public consultation process. Soliciting public participation allows policymakers to consider the needs of all stakeholders who may be affected by projects like oil and gas extraction and mining and road construction, and enables them to better identify unintended consequences. Long-term, policies developed with community input often get more public support and less resistance because citizens perceive these decisions as fair and legitimate.

The Dakota Access pipeline project showcases the importance of public participation. In July 2016, the Standing Rock Tribe filed a complaint against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that grants permits needed to construct the pipeline. They claimed that, by crossing under the Missouri River, the pipeline posed a serious threat to the community’s clean water and sacred burial grounds. Their complaint further alleged a breach of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act on the grounds of failure to consult with affected parties, adverse effects on water health and failure to assess scared sites.

In December, following weeks of public protests, the Corps decided it would delay the project in order to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, which would explore alternative routes for the pipeline. This result shows the power and necessity of public participation—people’s involvement is critical for protecting communities and for finding the safest, most appropriate options for infrastructure projects.

But on his second day in office, Trump ordered the Corps to “review and approve [the pipeline] in an expedited manner,” without considering alternative routes or conducting a public consultation. His directive effectively thwarts the public participation process to resolve what has become the biggest joint protest of Native American Indian tribes in decades.

The Way Forward

The United States has long been recognized as a global leader in establishing rights to environmental information, to accurate and objective scientific resources, and to public participation in decision-making processes. It currently holds the third-highest ranking on WRI’s Environmental Democracy Index, which scores countries on their ability to provide these fundamental rights.

The EPA and other government agencies’ mandate to use science to inform policies, to conduct extensive public consultations, and communicate openly with people plays a foundational role in protecting people’s health and the environment. Pursuing and sharing scientific data and evidence is integral to this process. The Trump administration, its agencies and their staff have an obligation to protect and continue America’s strong leadership on environmental democracy.

Voices from the Global Gathering

Last week the Access Initiative hosted its sixth Global Gathering, Open Government for Climate Action, on 5 December – 6 December, 2016, in Paris, as part of the lead up to the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Paris Summit. The Gathering brought together over 95 people from climate, open data, and open government civil society communities to expand new spaces for action and build momentum around implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

TAI asked a number of the participants how they can use open government to foster strong climate action in their work moving forward. This is what they said:

Carole Excell, Director, The Access Initiative

You have heard it said before: climate change remains one of the greatest challenges of our times. It affects all future generations. The Paris Agreement brings climate policies down to the national and local sector level in the “real world” where citizens can understand such as decisions around coal power plants, transportation, coastal structures to deal with sea level rise, land restoration, pipelines and adaptation requirements to deal with floods. However in many countries citizens do not a voice or seat at the table when these decisions are being made. To achieve accountability, people need rights that go to the heart of accountability. This requires strong transparency rules to facilitate understanding of power dynamics and culpability that people can participate in decision-making processes in a timely fashion, and that forums exist to address environmental justice demands. Good climate governance requires open and accountable government actions.  The Global Gathering built communities of actors who often work in silos, together for the first time to springboard greater and more effective climate action.  

Augustine B NJAMNSHI Executive Secretary Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme Cameroon & National Coordinator The Access Initiative Cameroon

Although as humans we all have common responsibility to take action to address climate change, some are more responsible than others. This is not only based on the fact that the current climate crises has been principally caused by the past and present production and consumption systems practiced by the global North, but also that they have benefited from it and have the capacity to withstand the shocks of climate change. They therefore owe greater responsibility not only to do more to stop the climate crises, but also a duty to help those who are suffering more from the effects of climate change in the global South.

Now the talking is over, and we need action. Equity and justice have to be translated into national action in every aspect of the climate regime. The farmer on the ground has to see equity and justice in every climate decision made by the government at all levels. There is no need to fight for climate justice at the international level, and then turn to deny the local population what has been fought for and demanded from the global north. After all, it is said he who goes for equity must go with clean hands! The global gathering was an opportunity for us, climate justice and governance advocates to pave the way on how to take the struggle at the national and local levels.

Eco Matser, Hivos, Global Coordinator Climate, Energy and Development

Hivos has been working with civil society organizations in countries such as Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Costa Rica on ensuring that governments follow up on their commitments towards ending energy poverty as detailed in the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Our main focus is on ensuring that decentralized renewable energy – a key component in establishing universal energy access – has the right policy and regulatory environment as well as access to finances from international and domestic climate finance. In many countries CSOs will keep a close eye on national energy budgets and are advocating for policy changes while in others such as in the Indonesian island of Sumba Hivos works in a multistakeholder approach with communities, governments and businesses to ensure the whole island gets powered by renewable energy.

During the Global Gathering Hivos explored the relevance of OGP for tracking international and national climate finance streams (both from donors and from national sources) as well as develop concrete ideas with the transparency and climate movement to increase transparency of climate finance and how to shift investments to be more focused on creating real energy access for the poor.

Renato Morgado, Public Policy Coordinator, Imaflora

Imaflora is one of the organizations responsible for the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimate System (SEEG) promoted by Climate Observatory, a coalition of 35 NGOs. Such initiative provides transparency to Brazilian GHG emissions, disseminating calculation method, database used on national inventory and results per sector, which allows a better comprehension and incidence on Brazilian public policies and climate compromises. We are also developing a web platform for visualization and monitoring of Amazonian timber flows, from harvest to consumption. The platform will allow better transparency in wood sector as well as to improve the combat to illegal logging and Amazon deforestation, main factor to GHG emissions in Brazil.

The Global Gathering helped enhance our performance, enabling an interaction with community of open government and knowledge of transparency, participation, accountability and technology initiatives and tools, which can be applied to the Brazilian context.

Leah Good, Programme Coordinator (Asia Pacific), Transparency International

Transparency International works with our partners around the world to make sure that actions to address and adapt to climate change are free from corruption. TI partners are tracking climate finance to figure out how much money is flowing and make sure it is spent properly. In Bangladesh and the Maldives, two of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world, our partners are working with beneficiaries of adaptation projects to assess their effectiveness. When problems are identified, our teams ensure local voices are heard. In forest-rich countries in Africa and South America, we are promoting governance reforms that will support successful REDD+ schemes to protect forests. Where investments in renewable energy are huge and growing, we are ensuring civil society plays a role in monitoring public contracts.

At the OGP Summit and beyond, we want to see governments commit to address the climate crisis transparently and openly. By bringing together such a broad range of actors and expertise, the Global Gathering helped TI partners forge new alliances, learn from other approaches, and build even more momentum towards a cleaner, greener future.

Using Open Government for Climate Action

Countries made many national climate commitments as part of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which entered into force earlier this month. Now comes the hard part of implementing those commitments. The public can serve an invaluable watchdog role, holding governments accountable for following through on their targets and making sure climate action happens in a way that’s fair and inclusive. But first, the climate and open government communities will need to join forces.

Historically, open government and climate groups have worked in silos, operating in different forums, using different terminology and meeting with different stakeholders. Yet the NGOs, academics and other non-state actors focused on transparent governance and accountability are critically important in the climate arena, especially now that countries must address numerous governance hurdles, including the need for national level institutional coordination, capacity building and political buy-in. Bringing together the open government and climate communities offers an opportunity to develop new strategies that enhance accountable and inclusive climate policy decision-making.

Here are four areas where these communities can lean in together to ensure governments follow through on effective climate action:

1) Expand access to climate data and information.

Open government and climate NGOs and local communities can expand the use of traditional transparency tools and processes such as Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, transparent budgeting, open data policies and public procurement to enhance open information on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance. For example, Transparencia Mexicana used Mexico’s Freedom of Information Law to collect data to map climate finance actors and the flow of finance in the country. This allows them to make specific recommendations on how to safeguard climate funds against corruption and ensure the money translates into real action on the ground.

Civil society NGOs can also provide alternatives to online portals to ensure information is actually reaching local communities. One group in Indonesia, Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (YLKI), uses its weekly consumer radio show to provide a forum around electricity issues in Jakarta. This allows them to directly share information about public rights around electricity services, provide a forum to answer questions, and increase the ability of local residents to address grievances about power cuts and service reliability.

2) Promote inclusive and participatory climate policy development.

Civil society and community groups already play a crucial role in advocating for climate action and improving climate governance at the national and local levels, especially when it comes to safeguarding poor and vulnerable people, who often lack political voice. Public survey research has also found that people want civil society NGOs included in climate policymaking decisions, and believe the process is more legitimate when civil society is involved. Open government and climate civil society groups can use their links with local communities to strengthen the number and type of initiatives used to feed public input into wider policy debates and secure a seat for both men and women at the decision-making table. This can include mobilizing youth awareness, training indigenous leaders on proposed and negotiated climate change legislation and their rights around the principle of “free, prior, and informed consent,” or strengthening NGO participation in government-led roundtables on national climate change agendas.

3) Take legal action for stronger accountability.

Accountability at a national level can only be achieved if grievance mechanisms are in place to address a lack of transparency or public participation, or address the impact of projects and policies on individuals and communities. Civil society groups and individuals can use legal actions like climate litigation, petitions, administrative policy challenges and court cases at the national, regional or international levels to hold governments and businesses accountable for failing to effectively act on climate change. In the Netherlands, for example, the Hague District Court determined the country must further reduce CO2 emissions to adequately address the impacts of climate change and meet their obligation to protect people and the environment. The case was brought by the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch NGO, and 886 individuals concerned about the country’s ongoing contribution to climate change.

4) Create new spaces for advocacy.

Bringing the climate and open government movements together allows civil society to tap new forums for securing momentum around climate policy implementation. For example, many civil society NGOs are highlighting the important connections between a strong Governance Goal 16 under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and strong water quality and climate change policies. WRI is hosting the sixth Global Gathering of The Access Initiative, called “Open Government for Climate Action,” organized in connection with the December Open Government Partnership Summit (OGP). This event will bring together leading thinkers in open government, open data and climate to exchange ideas on how civil society can best engage in implementing national climate policy.

The Gathering will also inform future open government commitments made by OGP member countries, including many of the countries responsible for the largest emissions of greenhouse gases, such as the EU, United States, Mexico, Indonesia and Brazil. The Gathering and Summit offer exciting opportunities to bring together the separate worlds of open government and climate. Together, they will help spur accountable and inclusive climate action that improves the lives of local communities.

Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment

STRIPE is an important resource in countries all over the world which do not have mandatory environmental disclosure regimes that require companies to disclose the types of pollutants that are being released into air, water, and land. Currently STRIPE is being utilized in Indonesia to help local Serang communities address the water pollution from the IKPP Pulp and Paper mill in the Ciujung River. It is also being utilized in Mongolia where partners are working with two communities concerned about water pollution in the Tuul River caused by mining and poor waste water treatment. STRIPE uses the following steps to achieve its goals:

  • Assess the challenges facing local communities concerned about air and/or water pollution released from local facilities
  • Evaluate the legal framework of the country including the laws governing the pollution control, the public release of environmental information, as well as basic freedom of information laws
  • Analyze the information that is available proactively – information that should be publically available without being formally requested
  • File information requests with government agencies to obtain any further information needed on pollution emissions and permitting abd track the results
  • Utilize the information gained from the above processes to develop advocacy messages and strategies that address community concerns.

New Tool Reveals How Jamaica’s Development Projects Impact People and Planet

By Carole Excell and Stephanie Ratte (Posted: November 20, 2014)

Portland Bight (PBPA) is Jamaica’s largest protected area, extending more than 200 square miles of land and 524 miles of sea. The region is home to 30,000 acres of mangroves, four dry limestone forests, and several threatened species, including the critically endangered Jamaica Iguana. But last year, the Jamaican government revealed plans to lease Goat Islands, two cays located in the protected area, to China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) to develop a sprawling $1.5 billion trans-shipment port. The project is expected to flatten the Goat Islands and dredge sizable areas, impacting fishing, tourism, biodiversity, and coastal resilience. What’s also troubling is that the government has released scant information about the project, preventing citizens from learning about how the port may impact them or voicing their concerns at an early stage of development.

This is not an isolated incident: Like many governments, Jamaica does not proactively disclose applications at an early stage for development projects like shipping ports, highways, housing developments, and more. What information is released—such as environmental impact assessments—is presented in a format that’s difficult for citizens to access and understand. Enter Development Alert!: The new tool from WRI’s Access Initiative and the Jamaica Environment Trust aims to promote transparency and public involvement around development projects that affect the environment and public health—projects like those planned in Goat Islands. Development Alert! proactively collects and consolidates information from different government agencies on applications for new development projects, obtaining this information through requests made using the country’s Access to Information Act. The free, mobile-friendly website plots recently approved or proposed large-scale development projects on an interactive map and acts as a hub for data and information about these projects. The map includes overlays of the boundaries of protected areas, fisheries, forest reserves, and land cover so users can easily see which projects are located in environmentally sensitive areas. Types of development projects featured include mining and quarrying; water management, treatment, and sanitation; housing developments; transportation systems and highways; tourism projects like hotel construction; hazardous waste; and more. Through the site, users can:

  • View proposed and approved projects and learn about the potential impact of developments happening in their area
  • Report a development they’ve seen in their neighborhood to help increase awareness about new projects, and
  • Get involved by commenting on a development and voicing their concerns. The website allows users to email public authorities directly and provides details about scheduled public hearings.

A Clearer Picture of Development in Jamaica

In Jamaica, Development Alert! currently identifies 32 projects that are likely to have significant health, environmental, social, or cultural impacts, including four projects classified as high impact. Of these, 11 are located in or around protected areas. Development Alert! shows, for example, that the trans-shipment port in Goat Islands is not only within the Portland Bight Protected Area, but is also located within a fishery—the Galleon Harbour Nursery—and the Great Goat Island forest reserve. The fishery acts as a critical habitat for rebuilding fish populations and safeguarding marine resources, while the forest reserve protects the biodiversity found within these natural and nationally important ecosystems. Users can click on the project to see that CHEC submitted an application on January 1, 2014 to conduct a geotechnical survey, and that the government has already approved this survey through the grant of a beach license. The license allows the company to investigate the suitability of the area, including the bearing capacity of the soil and rock, by conducting a survey of the “foreshore and floor of the sea at Galleon Harbour.” As the map shows, this area is protected as a Special Fisheries Conservation Area. The survey is done through the drilling of 27 boreholes on and offshore. By signing up for alerts, posting comments, or emailing the government agency listed, anyone can voice their concerns about the Goat Islands project.

Shedding Light on Development and Empowering Communities

Development Alert! aims to bring an unprecedented level of transparency and participation to energy, transportation, mining, and other types of development projects in Jamaica. It will help shed light on potentially harmful projects, and provides resources to ensure the public can understand their rights to participate in decisions about their country’s development. Strengthening the involvement of those most affected by development decisions can lead to better, more inclusive decision-making. Over the coming months, the Access Initiative hopes to launch similar platforms in other countries. Visit developmentalert.org to explore the tool and learn more.

Greenwatch Uganda Champions Information Rights

By Lalanath de Silva (Posted: March 4, 2008)

Laws alone are not enough to ensure environmental protection. Civil society organizations often play a critical role in bringing those laws to life. In Uganda, Greenwatch has done exactly that for the country’s laws on access to environmental information, the first of which passed in 1998.

Under Ugandan environmental law, the public has several opportunities to make its voice heard about new development projects. Projects that might affect the environment of Uganda have to be approved by the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). Before such projects are approved the developer must perform an Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA), which studies the environmental impacts and examines environmentally friendly alternatives. The law requires that the press announce that the assessment has been performed and that the written results are made available to the public for comment. If comment shows that a project is controversial, NEMA must hold a public hearing.

The public can also challenge NEMA decisions in the Ugandan courts, and that’s where the civil society organization Greenwatch, Uganda (Greenwatch) has distinguished itself. As early as 1999, the organization began suing the government to honor the regulations requiring the assessments.

Although the court refused to stop the signing of the agreement, Greenwatch and other advocates of greater public participation consider the case a partial victory: for the first time, a Ugandan court recognized that concerned advocates could bring a case to vindicate environmental laws. Justice Richard Okumu Wengi of the High Court of Uganda also declared that an assessment and NEMA approval were required before the project could go forward.Greenwatch’s first court challenge of a NEMA decision was to a hydro-electric project funded by the International Finance Corporation and other banks. A utility company – AES Nile Power – was attempting to sign a power purchasing agreement with the Government of Uganda, but the company had not performed an assessment nor had it obtained NEMA approval.

(Citation: NAPE VS AES Nile Power Ltd High Court Misc. cause No. 26 of 1999)

AES Nile Power then proceeded to perform an EIA, and NEMA approved the project. Yet when Greenwatch requested information on the project and the power purchase agreement, the Ugandan Government refused. Review of the power purchase agreement would tell the public if the electricity produced would be affordable and would ease the burden on the environment. Greenwatch sued the Attorney General of Uganda to obtain the document. The court decided that the power purchase agreement and all connected documents were both public documents and therefore ought to be made available to the public.
(Citation: Greenwatch Vs AG & UETCL)

A recent UN report concludes that while Uganda has made remarkable progress in the application of EIA procedures, there is a need to improve key aspects of its application. The report states that there is a “need to further develop approaches to ensure effective public participation in EIA, as well as need to create and strengthen regional and sub-regional EIA networks to complement national efforts for promotion of EIA.”

Greenwatch has also successfully used the space provided for public participation at EIA public hearings to stop the spraying of herbicides on Lake Victoria – the second largest lake in the world and the largest in Africa. Greenwatch produced convincing evidence to show the dangers of pesticide spraying. Greenwatch also showed that the entire operation might not be financially viable because the Ugandan company’s parent company in the U.S.A was bankrupt.

Greenwatch continues to advocate in the public interest today. Most recently, it obtained an interim order against Warid Telecom (U) Ltd., stopping the construction of a telecommunication tower in a residential area. The company had failed to perform an EIA and the residents had fears of a cancerous gas affecting them and the construction noise creating a nuisance. Warid Telecom has challenged these allegations saying that there is no scientific basis for any of them. The application for a temporary injunction will be heard soon.

Greenwatch has been closely associated with The Access Initiative coalition in Uganda and has blazed a trail championing citizen rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice (“access rights”) in environmental matters. It also works closely with the Government of Uganda to train public officers and judges in environmental law.

“Every person has a right to information under the Ugandan Constitution,” says Kenneth Kakuru, the Director of Greenwatch, Uganda. “An Environmental Impact Assessment is a public document.”

Resources and Legal Citations:

Full Judgments and more information can be obtained from the Greenwatch website, www.greenwatch.or.ug.

Soybean Boom Forcing Paraguay to Examine Pesticide Use

By Joseph Foti (Posted: February 7, 2008)

Once isolated Paraguay has changed radically due to a boom in soybean exports, which has brought changes in land and pesticide use.

Weak government regulation and poor public education about pesticide use highlight the need for better environmental governance. Access Initiative (TAI) partners, Instituto de Derecho y Economía Ambiental (Environmental Law and Economics Institute, IDEA) are working to build government capacity to make sure that the growing soybean trade is good for the environment and for workers.

National Public Radio recently interviewed Sheila Abed, the founder and now Executive Director of IDEA. She spoke about the problems surrounding glyphosate, a pesticide widely used in soybean farming. (Glyphosate was formerly known as “Roundup” when it was under a now-expired patent by Monsanto.) The weed-killer is generally considered safe for workers and widely used in the other countries, including the United States. But without proper handling procedures, glyphosate and its typical additives can pose potentially serious health effects.

This occupational hazard does not represent poor science or a weakness in the law as much as a weakness in environmental governance more generally. “Environmental governance” includes important “access rights” like access to information, public participation, and access to justice. In order to fulfill these rights, governments must have the capacity to provide these rights and the public must have the capacity to use them.

The case of Paraguayan soy boom highlights the need for both access to information and capacity-building for the government officials to ensure worker education and monitoring safe agricultural practice. In order for workers to know the difference between safe and unsafe handling, they must have access to information on potential health effects and how to avoid those health effects. Many countries address these needs through occupational safety hazard laws that mandate education programs and information dissemination programs for workers. To ensure that workers are receiving this vital information, governments must have the capacity to regulate employers. As the NPR story points out, some of the best ways of ensuring compliance is through partnerships with NGOs, including, in this case, labor unions and environmental NGOs.

We at WRI, the TAI secretariat, were lucky to have Ms. Abed stop by to lend us insight into the process that led up to involvement in governance issues around soybeans and eventually to the NPR interview. In the audio file below, you can hear her talk about IDEA’s work with The Access Initiative network as well as how the issue of soybeans reflects problems of weak enforcement and corruption in environmental issues more generally.