Topics: Access to Information

By Teresa Flores (Posted: November 13, 2012)

7 November 2012. Today at the ECLAC headquarters in Santiago, Chile, delegates of the signatory countries to the Declaration on the application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development finished a meeting where they agreed on a road map for its full implementation at the regional level.

Country representatives welcomed Brazil’s signature on the Declaration and agreed on a road map towards a regional instrument on rights of access to environmental information, participation and justice, which are enshrined in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development approved in 1992.

The document was approved at the end of the First meeting of the focal points appointed by the Governments of the signatory countries of the Declaration on the application of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In the text, delegates declare that information forms the cornerstone of all free and democratic societies, and that it is essential to take active measures to bring environmental information into the public domain, doing everything possible to guarantee ready, rapid, effective and practical access to that information.

They also recognize that it is essential to promote participation by all sectors of society in furthering the issues that form the region’s environmental agenda.

According to the road map approved by signatory countries, the main aims of the regional instrument must be to achieve a shared vision on the importance of benefits of the access rights of Principle 10 and to recognize the particular conditions of each signatory country.

They add that it should also promote the exchange and intensification of regional and international cooperation, considering the progress and practices seen in this regard, promote the conduct of activities for both civil society and the public sector, and to organize an inclusive process that allows all the sectors involved to make a contribution.

They reaffirmed the importance of civil society participation in and contributions to this process, for which, to the extent of each country’s capacities, appropriate measures will be considered such as providing up-to-date information on the process and conducting electronic consultations.

In order to implement this road map, country representatives agreed on a plan of action, which will be supported by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) as technical secretariat for the process.

Progress in the plan of action will be discussed during the first four months of 2013 and will include meetings for the focal points, who will meet at least once per year, and consideration of the proposals and recommendations arising from national consultation processes, including those conducted by United Nations agencies, in the light of agreements adopted at Rio+20.

Participants also agreed on the preparation of a report on the current situation in terms of Principle 10 access rights in the signatory countries, as well as another document compiling national and international practices in this regard.

Lastly, the plan of action approved today includes a consultation process to define the nature and content of the regional instrument for the implementation of Principle 10.

By Carrie McKee (Posted: November 5, 2012)

From October 22nd-25th, The Access Initiative hosted an international group of Thai and Indonesian civil society representatives, high level government officials, and legal aid groups as part of our Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment (STRIPE) project. This Study Tour provided our participants with an opportunity to meet US governmental officials, World Bank representatives, and NGO leaders to gain knowledge about our country’s pollution control regulations, data release procedures, and the challenges of using FOI requests to further pollution prevention campaigns.

On October 25th, TAI and our international guests presented a concluding seminar that reflected on lessons from the STRIPE Study Tour and how this work will fit into the broader context of the open government, environmental justice, and global access to information movements.

A video of the seminar is now online in two parts:

Part 1: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/26427274

Part 2: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/26427879

By Claudia Amegankpoe (Posted: October 14, 2012)

Face à la situation désastreuse des forêts au Bénin l’ONG Nature Tropicale membre de la Coalition nationale TAI a donné une conférence de presse pour tirer sur la sonnette d’alarme. En effet, le conférencier, Joséa DOSSOU BODJRENOU de Nature Tropicale a rappelé à l’assistance que le Bénin, malgré son statut de ‘’pays non forestier’’, des tonnes de bois forestiers y partent pour les pays asiatiques. Selon lui, « des exploitants aujourd’hui, tractent, négocient et abattent systématiquement les rares gros arbres vestiges dans les villages toujours à la recherche du bois d’oeuvre pour le marché asiatique au vu et au su des autorités compétentes dont le silence coupable est assez inquiétant ». Pour lui, cette journée est une occasion pour souligner le rôle central des hommes et femmes dans la gestion, la contribution et le développement durable de nos forêts dans le monde. Malheureusement, en dépit des multiples engagements pris par le Bénin, au niveau local et international, on assiste avec beaucoup de regrets, à la destruction alarmante du reste de son couvert végétal et au bâillonnement systématique voire l’emprisonnement des représentants des communautés riveraines de ces reliques forestières. Plusieurs témoignages au sein de l’assistance viennent corroborer les faits et indexer l’exploitation abusive des forêts et l’exportation du bois du Bénin. Les communes de kérou, kouandé, pehunco, bassila et N’dali ont été citées en exemple comme étant les localités victimes de ces massacres où depuis quelques années, les ressources forestières sont prises d’assaut par les exploitants indélicats. Cette campagne n’a épargné personne. Espérons que les objectifs visés par les auteurs trouvent de répondant auprès de la haute autorité et de toutes les parties prenantes afin que les forêts puissent continuer à jouer leur rôle ou éco systémique de survie et de lutte contre les changements climatiques.

By Carrie McKee (Posted: October 2, 2012)

As part of the preparation for our 2012 Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environmental (STRIPE) US Study Tour, TAI is featuring our visiting partners from Indonesia and Thailand. This piece is in conversation with Dr. Somrudee Nicro of the Thailand Environment Institute. Please join us online on Thursday, Oct. 25th from 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm EST for our web cast seminar reflecting on the experience of the study tour and looking forward to the future ATI movement.

1) Tell us about yourself and the work of TEI.

I am the senior director of TEI (Thailand Environment Insitute). TEI is a non-profit, knowledge based organization working on the environment. TEI started in 1993 and works from the grassroots level to the policy level, both nationally and internationally. We use a multistakeholder approach, working with policy makers, the business sector, academics, NGOs, and the grassroots. We work in several areas including natural resources and the environment, sustainable cities, environmental education, green labelling, climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable consumption and production and environmental governance, etc. We have been a partner and core team member of TAI since the very beginning – for over 10 years now.

2) What is the Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment (STRIPE) project?

The STRIPE project is about access to information, which is important for us because we see it as part of TAI (The Access Initiative, www.accessinitiative.org). We have been working on TAI for a long time and have made accomplishments around promoting access to information. Together with 31 other organizations, TEI has implemented Article 9(8) of the Official Information Act (1997), resulting in an announcement by the Official Information Commissioners that information related to the environment and health has to be made readily available to the public without request. However, in practice, most of this information is still unavailable without request. We hope that the STRIPE project will, one way or another, help expedite the enforcement of this law and turn it into actual practice.

3) Why is the STRIPE project important to the work that you do?

At present, if ordinary people, especially potentially impacted community members, want information about a project that will impact them, it could be very difficult to get. The lack of communication and access means people don’t know what is going to happen to their lives; this naturally raises their concerns particularly when there have been a number of cases which have had serious adverse impacts. And, in several areas, it has gotten to the point where local villagers don’t even trust the information given to them by governmental agencies. With the lack of other effective channels to make their voice heard, if they do want something they protest in number to express their concern. This protest could be in a form of road blocking, among others. Showing up in number has been deemed by several communities as the only effective mode in calling attention of the authority. For sure, this is not the best mode, and it’s very costly and dangerous to all involved parties in different ways. We hope that the STRIPE project will help people effectively get the information they need in a safe manner.

4) What are you hoping to gain from the US study tour?

The Study Tour could be very helpful because we plan to bring a variety of participants, from a prominent community leader who has been highly involved in this issue to the Secretary General of Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning and a Deputy Governor of Industrial Estate Authority of Thailand. The program has been very well designed and should be able to address many crucial issues we are facing in Thailand.

I am particularly interested in the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance – we don’t have such an office in Thailand. We have good laws and ambitious standards about the environment, but we have a problem with a lack of enforcement. The Office of Natural Resource and Environment Policy and Planning (ONEP) facilitates the approval process of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), but ONEP doesn’t have the mandate to monitor the companies’ compliance or the companies’ implementation of their pollution mitigation plans, which are attached to their EIA reports. In addition, the STRIPE project focuses on the link between environmental data and health data. In Thailand the environment and public health are mandates of different ministries. Cross-ministerial cooperation is always a challenge in Thailand. So we’ll see how the US overcomes these issues.

I just returned from a trip to Western Australia, where we visited a rural area. For example, one of the townships we visited has only 700 people. However, there is a governmental office in each township called the Western Australian Community Resource Centre. The community resource centers contain computers, internet, Skype, phone, fax, etc. for people’s free use to communicate with the government. In Thailand, it is at the people’s cost to communicate to officials. Moreover, when we send a letter to the government we don’t know if they’ll respond in time or if they’ll respond at all. The provision of the community resource centers in itself reveals that the government wants to hear from the people. I don’t know how communication between the government and citizens functions in the US. We are interested to see how the US government proactively facilitates communication between the people and the government.

1. Tell us about yourself and the work of ICEL:

I am a public interest lawyer in the Advocacy and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Division at ICEL. ICEL was established on 19 July 1993. It is an independent non-governmental organization that specializes on the development of an environment and natural resources regulatory framework, as well as advocacy and empowerment toward good sustainable development governance in environment and natural resources management in Indonesia.

2. What is the Strengthen the Right to Information for People and the Environment (STRIPE) project?

STRIPE is a program to strengthen the people’s right to environmental information so that they are able to advocate their rights to health and environment. STRIPE in Indonesia has four objectives, which are: 

a) Promoting the implementation of the Public Information Disclosure Act (PIDA), Environmental Protection and Management Act, and environmental related regulations which regulates public’s right to environmental information;

b) Promoting government’s/public bodies’ proactive release of information to the community/public;

c) Strengthening community’s capacity to understand the importance of access to environmental information and how to utilise it to advocate good environmental quality;

d) Promoting better policy and regulatory changes related to the air and water pollution control through environmental information that is aquired/accessed and analysed under the STRIPE program.

Currently we are working in two pilot projects in Serang, Banten Province and Tubanan, Jepara, Central Java with Friends of the Earth Indonesia- WALHI, and Semarang Legal Aid Foundation, and with members of each community. To reach the objective above we conducted activites such as:

a. Preparation (discussing the indicators and questions with the World Resources Institute, regulatory research on air and water standards);

b. Training the community regarding water pollution control in the pulp and paper industry and air pollution control from the coal power plant, training related to access to information and procedure under the Public Information Disclosure Act;

c. Requesting information from public bodies by members of the community, national and local partners under PIDA’s procedure;

d. Analysing the information acquired based on PIDA to identify the loopholes within PIDA and the Environmental Management and Protection Act regulatory frameworks and their implementation; 

e. Analysing information acquired based on PIDA to formulate policy recommendations to improve water and air pollution control and its implementation.

3. Why is the STRIPE project important to the work that you do?

In general, a succcess story from STRIPE would strengthen advocacy to promote public health and better environmental quality, also improving policy and regulatory framework of water and air pollution control. To be specific, STRIPE is important as: 

1. We want to exercise (ensure) the implementation of the Public Information Disclosure Act and the Environmental Protection Management Act (especially regarding the environmental information) so they are not paper tigers; 

2. We want to promote the importance of well informed citizens, as we believe that educated and informed citizens are the heart of a properly functioning environmental democracy. In most environmental problems, the community does not have enough information about problems they face, about the water quality, air quality, the laboratory results taken by government etc. If we have better information, we can express our ideas (and demand improvements) in a constructive way; 

3. We want to promote proactive diclosure by the government and also bridge the gap for what kind of information and format that is important/appropriate for public/community.

4. What were your experiences in completing the STRIPE project?

a. There are gaps in the implementation of PIDA (having PIDA does not mean we have immediate and easy access to information. In the context of Indonesia, there are a lot of things to do in order to make sure PIDA works, such as establishing infrastructure within public bodies, providing public bodies’ internal procedure to deal with information requests and proactive information, capacity building for community and government officials);

b. Based on information obtained through information requests, we have a lot of lessons learned, not only about access to information, but also substantial and technical aspects from water and air pollution control (e.g. we recognise that we don’t have enough standards for pulp and paper industry discharge. In terms of issuing permits the government does not inform and involve the community that will be directly impacted, there is a problem in the format of the permit, etc);

c. STRIPE helps us to bridge the understanding between government, civil society, and community regarding to the importance of information. The process and results of STRIPE may provide common ground among us to understand the importance of public access to environmental information.

5. What are you hoping to gain from the US study tour?

a. Learning from international experiences (Thailand and US);

b. Better understanding of the use of environmental information for campaigns and advocacy for a better environment;

c. More knowledge on regulatory framework and its implementation (standards on water and air pollution control regulatory frameworks, official responses, promoting the effective implementation of PIDA and proactive release of information);

d. The study tour will involve civil society and government officials, I hope that these activities can bridge the understanding between civil society and government, and we can work together to follow up with STRIPE’s recommendations.

By Carole Excell (Posted: October 1, 2012)

In the past year, I’ve had the pleasure of walking the halls at the launch of the Open Government Partnership last September at Google’s NY Headquarters and being in the negotiating room during Rio+20.

On their face, the two events could not have been more different: the OGP Launch, brimming with optimism, voluntarism, and riding the crest of the wave from the last decade’s gains in transparency and the Rio+20 negotiations, mired in anger over inaction from climate talks and locked in decades old struggles over international treaties. On the anniversary of OGP’s Launch this Wednesday, we reflect on some of the major outcomes of OGP and what they might mean for environment.

OGP represents a new kind of multilateralism.

At their core, both OGP and Rio+20 had a new approach to multilateralism. Key to this is the idea that you can create a “race to the top” with different governments trying to attain key goals in similar ways. Central to this is the role of pledges by governments and later verification. But in both of these processes, the assumption is that the changes must go beyond governments to involve both civil society and the private sector. This has been described as a shift from top-down treaty negotiations to a “pledge-and-review” world. (See WRI’s piece Kept Promises for a longer discussion of this phenomenon in the run-up to Rio+20.) Indeed, many people described these “other Rio+20s” among private sector and non-governmental actors as the real show in Brazil. As environmentalists, we can see this type of multilateralism emerging in other processes such as the Cancun Accords and the Black Carbon Partnership. Learning from OGP and other such initiatives can help understand precedents for these pledge-and-review initiatives.

OGP had real effects in the Rio+20 process.

Indeed, there was even a very practical overlap between OGP and Rio+20. Take the case of Chile, where one of their OGP commitments was to pursue a regional mechanism on access to information, public participation, and access to justice in matters affecting the environment. This was the first step in the Principle 10 Declaration, signed by 10 governments which begins a process to create a regional instrument on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. WRI, along with the many members of the network I am a part of, the Access Initiative worked to achieve that outcome. We saw OGP as a means to advance goals that would have a strong impact on people and the land, air, and water they depend on. (See here for a larger view of the Access Initiative’s Rio+20 strategy.)

OGP has the potential to make a big difference in environmental affairs in participating countries.

Global Integrity has done a fine job of analyzing OGP commitments in general, but WRI, working with The Access Initiative, wanted to see what the implications of the commitments would be for NGOs working on environment and natural resource (ENR) issues. OGP commitments on ENR issues advance Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration – meaning they relate to transparency and citizen engagement on ENR issues. To do this, we catalogued the commitments of the first 34 countries to submit action plans to OGP. We categorized each commitment into one of three categories:

• ENR-focused: Commitments in this category specifically mentioned environmental management or natural resource management. These commitments had to have a direct impact on environmental management, land use practices, or resource extraction. Examples include Brazil’s commitment on budget transparency which includes natural disasters and environmental catastrophes, the US commitment to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and South Africa’s commitment to explore an environmental open data portal.

• ENR-relevant: Commitments in this category would directly affect the agencies managing air, land, and water quality. Most commitments in this category would affect the environmental protection, forest conservation, or coastal management, to name a few examples, but may have cast a wider net. Examples include Spain’s commitment to ensure that public subsidies respond to specific criteria on transparency of goals and efficiency. As one might imagine, changing subsidy practices of an agricultural agency can have massive effects on land use and conservation. We found this to be an important category for organizations committed to improving environmental quality, public health, and natural resource management as these types of commitments may have even larger consequences than environmentally-focused commitments.

• Not ENR-relevant: Commitments which would have no direct bearing on ENR management fell into this category. However laudable, a commitment such as Norway’s commitment to transparency in equal pay for women in the private sector would fall into this category. So, what did we find?

• ENR-specific commitments, while uncommon, did exist. In fact, nearly 20 of 431 commitments (5%) made in OGP action plans had a direct bearing on ENR management. This is a small, but non-trivial number. When examined by country, 13 of the 34 countries examined had some commitments of direct bearing.

• ENR-relevant commitments were numerous. A huge number of commitments will influence natural resource management, land management, and environmental protection. Of the 431 commitments, 307 (71%) will have some bearing on how ENR-relevant agencies conduct their business. Taken this way, advocates for the environment and wiser natural resource management in all 34 of the OGP countries surveyed have some commitments which they should be following through on, ensuring implementation.

In the spirit of open data and right to information, the data we compiled is here, and we welcome any comments and discussion, but most importantly, we suggest a few steps for groups and individuals concerned with ENR Management:

• read the action plans to identify change opportunities in your country;

• continue to pursue the OGP and events around it as a means to achieving their ends in environment, public health, and resource management goals;

• Ensure implementation of existing commitments which will bear upon ENR management;

• Push for environmentally-specific commitments in further iterations of action plans;

• Form coalitions and working broadly on high-impact commitments which will affect sectors including but not limited to environment and natural resources.

As you can see, we have a ton of work to do. Since assembling this database in May, more than 20 new countries have joined OGP and Mexico has re-issued its action plan. As the new year rolls around, countries will issue their self-assessments, the Independent Reporting Mechanism will begin to deliver independent assessments of commitments, and presidents and prime ministers will be fishing for the newest round of commitments. We at the Access Initiative will be working closely with our governments to achieve innovative, meaningful results that help us attain a cleaner, more secure world. We hope you will join us.

Lauren Miller contributed to the database and analysis for this piece. Consuelo Fernandez updated our database of environmental and natural resource commitments attached here.

By Carole Excell (Posted: September 28, 2012)

Today is International Right to Know Day, a global initiative to share ideas and stories on right to information (RTI) laws and transparent governance. This blog post provides an inside look at how citizens from one Thai community are seeking access to information in order to protect themselves from environmental pollution.

This post was co-authored with Elizabeth Moses, an intern with The Access Initiative. This post originally appeared on WRI Insights.

On May 5, 2012, 12 people were killed and 129 injured in Thailand’s Rayong Province. The devastation occurred when a holding tank containing toluene exploded at the Bangkok Synthethics petrochemical factory in Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate, an area housing nearly 150 industrial facilities. The very next day, a mixture of hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid gas leaked from Map Ta Phut’s Aditya Birla Chemical Plant, sending 138 people to the hospital.

As the Bangkok Post noted, the more than 49,000 residents in areas surrounding Map Ta Phut received no warnings about the industrial accidents. They were not told if it was safe to remain in the region or if they should evacuate. In fact, details about the toxic chemicals released during the accidents were not even immediately provided to community members.

Leaving residents in the dark about the dangers they faced undeniably threatened their health. But what would have happened if community members already had information about the chemicals regularly used and emitted by Map Ta Phut’s industries? What if they understood the risks of being exposed to these chemicals and how to cope with these dangers should accidents happen? Would having easy access to information about the industrial estate help them protect themselves from industrial accidents and pollution?

These are the questions The Access Initiative (TAI) and its partner, theThailand Environment Institute (TEI), are hoping to answer through an ongoing project examining the effectiveness of Thailand’s freedom of information rules. By evaluating existing rules and pushing for better transparency, we hope that communities like those surrounding Map Ta Phut can safeguard themselves against environmental toxins.

Map Ta Phut: A History of Pollution

Established by the government of Thailand, the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate has a long, documented history of air and water pollution. Home to 147 factories—including petrochemical plants, oil refineries, coal-fired power stations, iron and steel facilities, and an industrial port—the Estate occupies 8,000 acres built over about 30 agricultural and residential communities.

In 2009, villagers from Map Ta Phut—with help from the People’s Eastern Network, a local NGO–filed a lawsuit before the Rayong Administrative Court to stop the expansion of the estate’s industries. The court issued a ruling acknowledging that Map Ta Phut pollution adversely affects people’s health and the environment and ordered a plan to reduce the pollution. The court also suspended 76 industrial projects due to their failure to conduct health impact assessments, which are required under Thailand’s Constitution.

Since the court’s ruling and finalization of health assessments, progress has been slow in addressing continued pollution and in analyzing the potential risks posed by discharges and the release of companies’ stored chemicals. Plus, additional factories have been allowed into Map Ta Phut, leaving communities vulnerable to ongoing pollution.

Examining Access to Information in Map Ta Phut

Thailand issued new rules under its Official Information Act in 2010, requiring state agencies to make certain types of environmental and health information publicly available to citizens even if they haven’t filed official information requests (which are similar to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests). This includes information on pollutants, their health impacts, and efforts to monitor and resolve environmental health issues caused by industrial sources. The Access Initiative and the Thailand Environment Institute have been working to assess whether community members within and around the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate can actually obtain the information specified under these new rules.

In June 2011, Thailand Environment Institute held a meeting with 15 villagers from various communities around Map Ta Phut. Community members and other stakeholders prepared a list of information they sought. A few examples from the community include:

• A list of factories in the Map Ta Phut estate that fail to adhere to government air and water quality standards;

• Safety of drinking water;

• What pollutants factories release into the air and water;

• Information about the health impacts associated with the pollutants released.

Community members and Thailand Environment Institute searched government agencies’ websites and local offices for this information, but found that none of it was available. Citizens then made official information requests—with mixed results. In almost all of the cases referenced above, agencies provided information after an unreasonable delay. For two of the requests, information was only obtained after citizens filed an appeal with the information commissioner’s office, which hears appeals regarding government agencies’ failure to obey the Official Information Act. Ultimately, agencies never released a list of factories violating standards, nor did they provide information on pollutants’ health impacts. Some relevant information was released on factories’ impacts on water quality as well as locations where factories released pollutants into rivers.

Can More Information Lead to Better Protection?

Access to information is an essential foundation for achieving environmental justice. Without easily accessible information, villagers cannot answer basic questions about their right to clean air and water. They cannot participate in the process meant to hold the Thai government and Map Ta Phut industries accountable.

To that end, The Access Initiative will continue its work in the Map Ta Phut region. We’re currently working on analyzing data and anecdotes we’ve collected on the ground. This data as well as policy recommendations for strengthening Thailand’s right to information laws will be published in a forthcoming report. By developing these recommendations, we can hopefully empower Map Ta Phut citizens—and communities across the globe—to demand meaningful information and protect themselves from industrial pollution.

By Carrie McKee (Posted: September 28, 2012)

The World Resources Institute, The Access Initiative, Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, and Thailand Environment Institute invite you to a web-cast seminar reflecting on the Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment (STRIPE) project.

Learn how citizens in Indonesia and Thailand are using their countries’ freedom of information (FOI) laws to obtain data on the environmental pollution in their communities. From October 22nd –October 25th, WRI will be hosting an international group of Thai and Indonesian civil society representatives, high level government officials, and legal aid groups as part of our Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment (STRIPE) project. This Study Tour will provide our participants with an opportunity to meet US governmental officials, World Bank representatives, and NGO leaders to gain knowledge about our country’s pollution control regulations, data release procedures, and the challenges of using FOI requests to further pollution prevention campaigns.

On October 25th, from 4:00 – 6:00 pm, the Study Tour with present a concluding panel discussion, entitled “Moving the Global Access to Information Agenda Forward.” Join us online as we highlight the outcomes of our STRIPE Study Tour and how this work fits into the broader context of the open government, environmental justice, and global access to information movements.

Invited speakers include Andrew Steer, president of WRI and Dr. Wijarn Simachaya, Secretary General of the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy (ONEP), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Thailand, as well as representatives from the Thailand Environment Institute and the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law. We hope you will join us!

Moving the Global Access to Information Agenda Forward

October 25th, 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm EST

World Resources Institute

10 G Street, NE (Suite 800)

Washington, DC 20002

To view the live stream of the event on October 25th, log on to http://www.ustream.tv/channel/wri-live

For interactive participation, also join the GoToMeeting athttps://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/168746730 Meeting ID 168-746-730

If you would like to attend the event in-person, please RSVP to cmckee@wri.org.