Published: 2013
Topics: Access to Information
Published: 2013
This powerpoint presentation was part of an event on the LAC Declaration on P10 at the World Resources Institute on Friday, June 14, 2013.
By Catherine Easton, Natalya Lozovaya, and Peter Veit (Posted: June 13, 2013)
(Original article posted on WRI Insights on June 13, 2013: http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/06/ending-resource-curse-c…)
Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, took a significant step toward promoting transparency and reducing global poverty. He announced yesterday that Canada will implement mandatory reporting requirements for Canadian extractive companies operating both in-country and abroad.
This mandate will require Canadian extractive companies to publicly disclose the payments they make to foreign governments in exchange for permission to operate on their soil. This development will help promote transparency in the mining sector and, if implemented effectively, could help combat the “resource curse.”
Fighting the Resource Curse through Access to Information
Tackling the “resource curse” is a challenge of global proportions. The term applies to situations where, despite a country’s mineral or oil wealth, poverty is exacerbated in part by weak or corrupt institutions, government mismanagement of revenues, and a failure to re-invest into projects that benefit the public—such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. Often, citizens of resource curse countries aren’t able to hold their governments accountable for this abuse of power because they lack information about their country’s revenues and expenditures. (See italicized description below).
The new Africa Progress Report 2013 (http://www.africaprogresspanel.org/en/publications/africa-pr…) and an issue brief from the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (http://frameweb.org/adl/en-US/10521/file/1577/B.1%20Financia…) — which WRI experts contributed to—reveal the mining industry’s progress and shortfalls in curbing the resource curse. Companies’ mining operations typically take place in multiple host countries, and contracts and payments to these host countries are not usually disclosed publicly. However, if companies made information about these payments available, civil society and investors could monitor whether or not these public revenues are re-invested into projects that actually benefit the public. With access to information—which Canada’s new mandate will help provide—these actors have the ability to reduce corruption and alleviate poverty by holding governments and companies accountable for their spending.
Canada’s Action Is Globally Significant
Canada is the world’s leading mining country. Almost 1,700 mining companies are listed on and regulated by the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV), placing a large share of the global mining sector under Canada’s regulation.
Of approximately 10,000 mineral projectsundertaken by TSX and TSXV-listed companies, almost half are located outside of Canada. The graphic below illustrates the global reach of Canadian mining companies, with operations in both developed countries like the United States, and developing countries such as Tanzania, Mali, DRC and Burkina Faso. Therefore, implementing a national disclosure policy would have a big impact in making the global mining sector more transparent and accountable.
Canada Joins a Global Movement
Canada now joins a global movement in improving transparency in the extractives industry. Mining, oil, and gas companies across the world are increasingly recognizing that disclosing financial information can help ensure that natural resource revenues are re-invested to reduce poverty and benefit citizens. For example, 76 extractive resource companies have joined the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), a coalition of governments, companies, and civil society committed to a global standard for transparency in oil, gas, and mining. The EITI standard calls for companies to publish what they pay to host governments, and, conversely, for host governments to disclose the amount of money they receive from companies.
Several countries are also developing national legislation to address transparency in the extractives sector. In August of 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted rules for the implementation of Section 1504of the 2010 U.S. Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This law calls for extractive companies filing annual reports with the SEC to disclose payments to host governments. The legislation has a wide reach, as it applies to both U.S. and foreign-based companies.
While these rules are currently being challenged by the American Petroleum Institute and other business groups, if upheld in court, approximately 200 mining companies will be required to disclose their host country payments to the SEC. (An additional 350 oil and gas companies will also be required to disclose their host country payments to the SEC.) Similar legislation is currently being debated in the U.K., E.U., and other nations. Canada will now join their ranks.
Some host countries are also changing their laws to provide for more access to government-held information. More than 80 countries around the world have enacted comprehensive Freedom of Information Acts (FOIAs) to help ensure citizens’ right to accessible information. Moreover, some national natural resource laws specifically recognize the need for publicly traded companies to disclose financial information on payments to host governments in their reporting to financial regulators. For example, Uganda’s Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Bill of 2012 contains a confidentiality clause, but clarifies that it will not prevent disclosure of company information if required by its home government, or as required by any law.
Next Steps
Although the announcement from Prime Minister Harper is welcome news, much work still lies ahead—namely, in formalizing a policy that generates real impact. Since September 2012, the Resource Revenue Transparency Working Group has been developing a framework for mandatory reporting for Canadian extractive companies. A draft of this framework will be released by the end of the week. The working group will then work closely with the Government of Canada as it begins consultations with provinces and territories, First Nations and aboriginal groups, and industry and civil society organizations. Finalizing the formal disclosure policy could take several years. If the resulting policy is strong, effective and consistent with other countries’ initiatives, Canada can help ensure public access to extractive sector revenue without imposing undue burdens on extractive companies. And through this, the country could play a key role in breaking the global resource curse.
Solving the Resource Curse
Aside from government mismanagement of resources and weak, ineffectual, unstable, or corrupt institutions, the “resource curse” can also be attributed to other causes. These include a decline in the competitiveness of other economic sectors (caused by appreciation of the real exchange rate as resource revenues enter an economy); and/or volatility of revenues from the natural resource sector due to exposure to global commodity market swings. Access to financial information alone will not eradicate the resource curse, but it is an essential pre-condition.
By Caitlin O’Donnell (Posted: June 10, 2013)
On 30 May 2013, Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations’ Secretary-General, received a landmark report from the High-level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Established by the Secretary-General in 2012, the 27-member Panel is co-chaired by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron.
The report outlines a universal agenda to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 and deliver on the promise of sustainable development.
The report calls for “a fundamental shift – to recognize peace and good governance as a core element of wellbeing, not an optional extra” and proposes that transparent and accountable governance be one of five cornerstones in the mission to end world poverty and reduce inequality.
Read the report: http://www.un.org/sg/management/beyond2015.shtml
By Catherine Easton, Natalya Lozovaya, Peter Veit and Harriet Bibangambah (Posted: May 31, 2013)
(Original article posted on WRI Insights on May 31, 2013: http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/improving-freedom-infor…)
Uganda is one of only 10 African countries with a national access to information (ATI) law. These types of laws are essential to human rights, providing citizens with legal access to the government-held information that directly impacts them—information on issues like mining permits, logging concessions, air quality data, and more. But as researchers are learning, ATI laws on the books do not necessarily guarantee freedom of information.
Investigating Access to Information in Uganda
The Access to Information in Africa project —a joint initiative with WRI and the Ghana Center for Democratic Development, Greenwatch Uganda, and Open Democracy Advice Centre of South Africa—evaluates transparency models and environmental accountability in Africa. The project’s research includes conducting a series of citizen requests for information in Ghana, Uganda, and South Africa. (See italicized description below).
Uganda passed its Access to Information Act in 2005, releasing an implementation plan and ATI regulations in 2011. The regulations establish procedures for citizens to request government-held information and for the government to respond to citizen requests. WRI and Greenwatch, a Ugandan environmental law and advocacy organization set out in August 2011 to investigate how the law works.
Greenwatch requested information from the National Forestry Authority (NFA), a government institution responsible for managing Uganda’s Central Forest Reserves. A staff member submitted a request form for information on forest concessions—including a map of the licensed areas, copies of concession agreements, government revenues, and the number of people displaced by concessions. Government officials then asked the staff to write a letter to the NFA’s Executive Director about why she wanted the information, even though the ATI law does not require the reason to be disclosed. After the first attempt went unanswered, another Greenwatch staff member sought the same information. Officials referred him to a few different departments before instructing him to submit a standard request form. The NFA again asked for a letter to the Executive Director. Greenwatch followed up multiple times after submitting the letter, but did not receive an answer.
Greenwatch then tried again—this time, sending an ordinary citizen rather than an NGO researcher. Officials directed the citizen to multiple NFA officials before two of them questioned him about why he needed the information, threatened to arrest him, and called security. When the citizen explained that he sought the information on behalf of Greenwatch, officials confiscated his identity card and mobile phone and brought him to Greenwatch’s offices. After Greenwatch explained the aims of the research, the NFA officials returned the requestor’s items and released him. They still refused to provide the information, arguing that they do not give out information that could be “misused.”
Improving Access to Information in Africa
The experience of these individuals shows that despite Uganda’s ATI law and regulations, obtaining government-held information can still be a subjective and inconsistent process. All of the Greenwatch requesters were ultimately denied the information they sought from NFA. Uganda’s experience with spotty implementation of its ATI law is not unique in Africa. In 2003, Open Society Institute (OSI)’s Justice Initiative conducted a similar study. The organization found that of 496 requests for information filed in five countries, fewer than 36 percent actually received the information.
While it is encouraging that a growing number of African countries are enacting ATI laws, there’s a key lesson to learn from the experience of Uganda and others: Getting a law on the books is just the first step in the process to ensuring freedom of information. ATI law implementation is complex—governments must be politically and financially committed to making their ATI laws work for their citizens. Plus, policymakers must possess the know-how to engage citizens and build the infrastructure for greater government transparency.
Access to Information in Africa and other organizations are researching and disseminating information on government transparency models. By fostering a greater understanding of effective governance, we can help ensure that access to information laws achieve their intended goals: improving citizens’ rights and their overall quality of life.
What Is the Access to Information in Africa Project?
The Access to Information (ATI) in Africa project is an initiative of the World Resources Institute in partnership with the Center for Democratic Development (CDD) in Ghana, Greenwatch in Uganda, and the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) in South Africa. The overall goal of the ATI in Africa project is to better understand transparency models and environmental approaches to accountability in Africa, and to inform policymakers and citizen groups engaged in building the infrastructure for greater transparency. The project’s research includes a series of citizen requests for information in each of the three countries. An ordinary citizen, and NGO representative, a journalist and a student would all try their chances at receiving various types of information from various government agencies.
By Carole Excell (Posted: May 29, 2013)
There is growing evidence of a greater focus on efforts to assess and promote more effective implementation of ATI laws. WRI released a little over a year ago new research on implementation challenges in 3 African countries (Uganda, Ghana and South Africa) as part of its ATI in Africa Project. The paper entitled Passive and Active Resistance to Openess : The Transparency Model for ATI laws in Africa written with partners from each of these countries (ODAC, CDD and Greenwatch) documents longstanding implementation challenges in Uganda, Ghana and South Africa.
The World Bank has also recently released new ATI case studies and an indicator framework for assessing implementation efforts in countries all over the world. PAM:https://www.agidata.org/Pam/Documents/FOI%20ME%20Note_12Apr1… See case studies and access report at:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSEC…
The Carter Center has also developed an IAT or Implementation Assessment Tool http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/americas/accesstoinformation/IAT/index.html which serves the dual purpose of diagnosing the extent to which the public administration is capacitated to respond to requests and to provide information, as well as providing an implementation roadmap for the government. This is all good news. An expanded base of knowledge on how to ensure successful implementation of FOI laws is needed to translate legislation into timely and effective public access to meaningful information. These continued efforts on research and improving implementation need the full support of the ATI community.
Published: 2013
By Nadia Vandergriff (Posted: May 10, 2013)
Original article from The Observer http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option
One day Abadallah walked to the National Forestry Authority as a concerned citizen seeking to get information about licensing forest reserves.
He was instead manhandled and arrested on suspicion he was impersonating someone else. The account was retold during an Access to Information (ATI) project research carried out by non-governmental organization, Green Watch in partnership with the Washington–based World Resources Institute, at a workshop held at Hotel Africana, on Wednesday.
According to research findings presented by Green Watch Director Kenneth Kakuru, most people who go out to look for information from government offices usually don’t get it.
Uganda’s Access to Information Act was enacted in 2005 but has not been fully implemented according to Kakuru. “Why do you pass a law saying every citizen shall have a right to information yet you can’t give those people the information?” he asked.
By Carole Excell (Posted: May 10, 2013)
(Original article posted by Carole Excell on WRI Insights on May 9, 2013: http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/new-jakarta-declaration…)
Increased industrialization in Asia has created countless hurdles for communities to protect themselves from pollution. Important government information—such as the amount of pollutants being discharged by nearby factories or results from local air and water quality monitoring—still isn’t readily accessible in user-friendly formats. This practice often leaves the public entirely out of decision-making processes on issues like regulating pollution or expanding industrial factories. In many cases, the public lack the information they need to understand and shield themselves from harmful environmental, social, and health impacts.
This state of affairs recently prompted a group of government officials, NGOs, local community representatives, and academics to demand government action to change the status quo. Last week, representatives from China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Thailand released the Jakarta Declaration for Strengthening the Right to Environmental Information for People and the Environment. The Declaration urges governments to improve access to information on air and water quality pollution in Asia—and offers a detailed road map on how to do so.
The Declaration stemmed from a meeting organized by WRI’s the Access Initiative and the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, held last week in Jakarta. Representatives will now bring the list of findings and recommendations to government officials in their home countries and ask for commitments on increasing transparency.
A Lack of Transparent Environmental Information
China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, and Thailand have all adopted Freedom of Information (FOI) laws that guarantee a right of access to information. But while these laws are on the books, they’re not making enough of an impact. The meeting concluded that more must be done to ensure practical access to environmental information. Some conclusions include:
-
In Japan, NGOs’ need more capacity to use the FOI law.
-
In Indonesia, government agencies could make data on air and water—including Environmental Impact Assessments—available electronically and in user-friendly language on their websites.
-
In Mongolia, a program is needed to support citizens’ participation in decisions on the mining sector and to raise public awareness on the importance of the new FOI law.
-
In Thailand, the government needs to reform the FOI legislation, providing administrative regulations to improve implementation. Part of this process could include designing programs to improve the capacity of government officials to implement the law.
-
In the Philippines, the government could development a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register that discloses data on corporate emissions.
The Jakarta Declaration on Strengthening the Right to Environmental Information for People and the Environment
The Jakarta Declaration also outlines ways that Asian nations can improve transparency, access to information, and public participation. It includes 16 guiding principles. A few of the major findings and recommendations include:
-
Significant barriers exist that impair local communities’ access to environmental information across Asia. Some of these barriers include costs; limited information available at local, public authorities; and highly technical information that is difficult for the public to understand.
-
The public has a right to participate in establishing the types of environmental information to be released, including, but not limited to: planning applications, environmental impact assessments, permits, air and water quality monitoring information, and inspection reports.
-
Information must be made available to local communities in a wide range of formats, including internet, TV, radio, newspaper, paper records, and via mobile phones. This information must be systematically provided, timely, reliable, comprehensive, user-friendly, accessible, inexpensive, and accurate.
-
Access to information on corporate, facility, and state-owned enterprise’s pollutant discharges and their impacts on the environment is limited in many countries in the region. Corporate sector emission and discharge data must be provided to the government to enable environmental monitoring. This information directly relates to the environment and public health, and therefore, should be released in the public interest.
For the entire list of findings and recommendations, download the full Declaration.
Moving Forward with Access to Information
The Jakarta Declaration marks an important step forward for improving access to information about air and water. This comprehensive Declaration provides governments with concrete ideas for boosting access to information and safeguarding citizens from projects that may negatively impact air and water quality.
But a roadmap is only worthwhile if it’s actually used. Prioritizing proactive transparency is worthwhile for both the government and the public. Releasing environmental information can have long-term impacts on the health and well-being of communities across Asia.
By Nadia Vandergriff (Posted: May 7, 2013)
Some recent and rather sad news on freedom of information from Hungary.http://atlatszo.hu/2013/04/29/hungarian-parliament-to-curtai…
The Bill was submitted to the Parliament on Sunday (see the date on the document http://www.parlament.hu/irom39/10904/10904.pdf) and the Parliament after a very thorough consideration adopted it today in the morning.
The timing of the adoption of the Bill, that was rushed through the Parliament, perfectly shows Hungary’s commitment to principles of open government as the country officially joined the OGP last week.
http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-public-administration-a…