The Access Initiative

Topics: Access to Information

Q&A with Alda Salomao: Natural Gas Project Threatens Community Land in Mozambique

By Celine Salcedo-La Viña (Posted: March 5, 2015) 

As the United States and other western countries shift from aid-based engagement in Africa to more trade and investment, it’s important to ensure that investments are environmentally and socially responsible. Investments in agriculture, infrastructure and energy can adversely affect people and the planet if the needs of local communities are ignored. Rural Africans frequently suffer displacement and lose access to vital natural resources as governments acquire their lands and allocate them to local and foreign investors—even in countries where laws recognize community land rights. Alda Salomao is the director general of Centro Terra Viva (CTV), a local NGO working to secure community land rights in Mozambique. While Mozambique has strong community land laws on the books, the provincial and district governments often fail to enforce these laws—especially as natural gas extraction expands. Here, Salomao describes the tension between communities living in the Afungi Peninsula and a natural gas project.

1) Can you give a brief background of the natural gas project in the Afungi Peninsula? About 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas were found in the Rovuma Basin in northern Mozambique, one of the world’s most significant gas discoveries in the last 20 years. An American and an Italian company, Anadarko and ENI, independently hold offshore concession blocks in Rovuma and have agreed to jointly develop their gas discoveries under the Mozambique Liquefied Natural Gas Project. The companies began the onshore LNG plant development in 2010, selecting the Afungi peninsula as the project site.

2) How did the companies acquire the land? The government issued the companies a land-use right, known as a DUAT (Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra), for 7,000 hectares in the village of Quitupo and parts of the neighboring villages of Senga, Maganja and Patacua. Officials granted the DUAT to Anadarko and the state-owned National Hydrocarbons Company through a holding company formed by both, with ENI subsequently buying into this company and becoming a co-title holder.

3) Was this land acquisition compliant with Mozambique’s land and other laws? The process of granting the DUAT to the companies was not transparent and ran counter to national land laws. To begin with, the companies involved did not release specifics about their building plan until after they received their DUAT. The 1997 Land Law and 1998 Land Law Regulations, however, require that companies release an exploitation plan before applying for a DUAT for economic activities. More importantly, under the Land Law, local communities hold land-use rights to customarily occupied and held lands, whether or not these lands are formally registered or titled. As rights holders, they are entitled to be consulted and must give their consent on DUAT applications for their lands. CTV found that provincial authorities produced as proof of consent the minutes of a community consultation meeting held in Quitupo, bearing the signatures of community representatives. Some of the representatives deny signing any minutes. It was impossible for some to have signed as they are illiterate, while others on the list deny being present at the meeting. The communities should have also received compensation before the transfer of their land to gas companies as provided in the Land Law.

4) How have the local communities been affected so far? Perhaps the most problematic effect is the psychological, emotional and social turmoil caused by the imminent uprooting and resettlement of the entire community of Quitupo to make way for the project. Villagers in Quitupo, Senga, Maganja and Patacua were caught by surprise when company trucks began bulldozing their fields, crops and trees to make way for roads, landing fields and buildings. Company representatives gave money to villagers as compensation, although it was unclear to them how their land was acquired and how compensation was calculated. And finally, project operations began before mandatory environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and community consultations were completed. These four communities are the most affected, but the whole Afungi peninsula will likely be impacted by the project. The planned industrial city is to occupy 18,000 hectares, overlapping the lands of seven additional communities.

5) How have CTV and other NGOs responded to the natural gas project? CTV closely followed the licensing process for this project, after witnessing irregularities in the 2007 Moatize coal mining project in the central province of Tete, which caused social disturbances and violence in 2010. In an effort to avoid a similar occurrence in Afungi, CTV helped prepare local communities through legal trainings and ensuring access to project information. CTV pushed for community consultations in the EIA process, which was initiated in July 2013, seven months after the DUAT was issued. We mobilized the civil society coalition which is monitoring extractive industries and we launched a media campaign. CTV has also started a legal process to null the DUAT and ensure that future licenses are awarded in accordance with law. The government has charged CTV with promoting disobedience among the villagers. On August 20, 2013, at 6:00 a.m., three armed policemen knocked on my door and escorted me to the police station. They told me that a government official ordered my arrest, complaining that my work and that of CTV were agitating and inciting communities to violence. Officers also said the government was having difficulty communicating with Quitupo village since CTV disseminated information on land and environmental laws. 7) Are there similar cases like this reported in other areas of Mozambique? Unfortunately, there are other cases around the country involving large-scale land acquisitions by investors who fail to respect community rights and laws. The Moatize coal mining project is one example. These incidents demonstrate that beyond laws, we need to address government and corporate ethics.

8) Why is it important for Mozambique and other countries in Africa to provide communities with strong land rights? In Mozambique, the majority of the population lives in rural areas, and land will, for many years to come, be their basis for subsistence and wellbeing. Secure access and rights to land by local communities is a matter of social and economic stability and justice. The government has also proclaimed that agriculture, especially family farming, will remain the most important base for food production and rural development. Rural families must therefore be able to access and use land in a secure environment. The government must do more to prepare its citizens for the challenges resulting from increasing investments in rural lands. They have the responsibility to educate communities on their legal rights, disseminate information on development issues and impacts and include rural communities as actors in the national development process. When the government makes decisions that will have adverse social, environmental and economic impacts on citizens, it must clearly demonstrate how the benefits outweigh these costs. Displacing people from their lands without clear justification and without due process is simply unacceptable. LEARN MORE: Check out our interactive Rights to Resources map, which presents information on citizen and community rights to natural resources in sub-Saharan Africa.

South Africa Reaffirms Right to Access Environmental Information

By Rachel Mulbry (Posted: December 3, 2014) 

For years, residents in the Vaal Triangle, near Johannesburg, South Africa, complained of groundwater contamination from the nearby steel industry. Environmental activists with the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) realized over a decade ago that having access to information about the industry’s environmental impacts would be essential in order to hold major polluters accountable for potentially illegal contamination. After years fighting in the courts, VEJA’s efforts were reaffirmed on November 26, 2014 by a Supreme Court of Appeal decision that dismissed an appeal by steel giant Arcelor Mittal (AMSA), forcing the company to release its Environmental Master Plan to VEJA. The Master Plan contains the documentation of pollution levels at AMSA’s facilities in the region, as well as its plans for environmental remediation. In their appeal, Arcelor Mittal argued that VEJA’s request to the company for environmental information, made in 2011 under South Africa’s Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), was too vague and usurped the responsibilities of environmental regulatory agencies. The Supreme Court decision countered these arguments, stating that VEJA’s request was made in the public interest. The Court’s decision explained that in order to prove public interest, the requestor must supply a legitimate rationale for why the information is “reasonably required for the exercise or protection of his or her rights.” Arcelor Mittal’s history of environmental contamination in South Africa legitimated VEJA’s claim that access to information about the company’s environmental impacts was in the public interest. The case also highlighted the strategic legal value of comparing a company’s actions to their social and environmental commitments. Multiple annual reports from Arcelor Mittal contain a commitment to engage key stakeholders, including environmental organizations and affected communities. The company’s decade-long refusal to provide VEJA with relevant environmental information despite these commitments highlighted the discrepancy between company policy and actions. Robyn Hugo, an attorney at the Centre for Environmental Rights, which represented VEJA in the case, reiterated that the ruling “confirmed that this approach is not only disingenuous, but unacceptable.” Most importantly, the Court upheld the constitutional provision that “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing” and highlighted the intrinsic connection between this right and the right of access to information. As VEJA Coordinator Samson Mokoena explained, “this judgment confirms what we have known all along – that we have a Constitutional right to know what AMSA’s impacts are on our health and the environment. Polluting companies like AMSA can no longer to try to hide this kind of information.” Moving forward, the ruling will have important implications for the governance of resource-intensive activities, including South Africa’s large mining sector. No longer will companies be able to safely assume that they can ignore or refuse requests for environmental information while publicly espousing good governance and a commitment to environmental protection. As the Court ruling concluded, “Corporations operating within our borders, whether local or international, must be left in no doubt that in relation to the environment in circumstances such as those under discussion, there is no room for secrecy and that constitutional values will be enforced.” This is an important victory for VEJA, the Centre for Environmental Rights and the residents of the Vaal Triangle. It is also represents a significant step forward for access rights champions across South Africa. The Access Initiative congratulates all those who worked to achieve this outcome. The complete Supreme Court of Appeals ruling can be found here.

East Kalimantan Community’s Struggles Underscore the Need for Proactive Transparency in Indonesia

By Carole Excell and Cait O’Donnell (Posted October 28, 2013) 

A special thanks to: Ariana Alisjahbana (WRI) for translating the many steps of JATAM’s right to information (RTI) request.

The Indonesian province of East Kalimantan has experienced a mining boom in the last decade. This boom has been decidedly pronounced in Samarinda, its capital, where more than 70% of the area has been allocated to mining concessions. Mining pits have been excavated near residential communities and then abandoned without reclamation and without proper environmental and safety control. As a result, two children were found dead in a mining pit in the outskirts of Samarinda, East Kalimantan in 2011.

JATAM (the Mining Advocacy Network), responded to these fatalities by using Indonesia Public Disclosure Act or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as an advocacy tool. JATAM is a network of non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations working on a number of interconnected issues including human rights, gender, the environment, indigenous peoples, and social justice in relation to the mining, oil, and gas industries. JATAM requested environmental impact assessments (EIA), also referred to as the AMDAL process in Indonesia, for all of the coal mining companies operating throughout East Kalimantan (approximately sixty).The organization hoped that obtaining these assessments—which they are legally guaranteed access to through FOIA —could shed light on local coal mines’ contaminants, the mitigation of impacts from mining activities, the monitoring of mining concessions, and other health and safety concerns.

JATAM embarked on their mission to obtain EIAs for every coal mining operation in January 2012. To date, they continue to work on fulfilling this mission. JATAM’s struggle makes it clear that while Indonesia may have a freedom of information law, actually obtaining the government-held information that directly impacts them is exceedingly difficult for the country’s citizens. Kahar Al Bahri, JATAM East Kalimantan’s Coordinator, describes the process of requesting environmental information under the Indonesia’s Freedom of Information law in an interview on YouTube.

1. JATAM initiated this process on January 12, 2012 by sending a letter to the Provincial Environment Agency in Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. JATAM received no response. They sent and re-sent letters to the Provincial Environment Agency in Samarinda, the Environment Agency of East Kalimantan, and the Information Commission of East Kalimantan. Still, JATAM received no response. They filed a formal complaint with the mayor of Samarinda, who claimed that the information is private.

2. JATAM sent a formal complaint to the Information Commission of East Kalimantan, which agreed to mediate a meeting between JATAM and the Environment Agency of East Kalimantan. The Environment Agency, however, did not attend the first meeting. At the second meeting, the Environment Agency’s head denied the legitimacy of JATAM as an organization that could file a FOI request. Through the Information Commission’s mediation, the Environment Agency agreed to give JATAM the EIAs in one month.

3. Less than a month later, the Environment Agency claimed that the meeting did not follow the correct legal procedures and refused to comply with the decision. JATAM involved the local court system and, after several months, the court ruled that the Environment Agency had 8 days to comply with JATAM’s EIA request.

4. As of the date of the interview, The Environmental Agency is delaying the request and only issuing one EIA per week. The attached infographic outlines the timeline and the specifics of each step of JATAM’s EIA request.

The Need for Proactive Disclosure

As the process outlined above indicates, JATAM’s success in acquiring EIAs in East Kalimantan was hard-earned. The battle clearly provides justification for the call by advocates around the world that environmental information needs to be proactively available to members of the public without a request. Proactive Disclosure is the purposeful and anticipatory release of information to the public by government. Proactive Disclosure includes making information available to many potential requestors at once in a timely and efficient manner. In 2010, the International community adopted some specific guidelines in Bali, Indonesia, called the UNEP Bali Guidelines, on access to information, public participation and access to justice in the case of the environment, which recognize that: “Environmental information in the public domain should include, among other things, information about environmental quality, environmental impacts on health and factors that influence them, in addition to information about legislation and policy, and advice about how to obtain information.” Environmental Impact Assessments fall into the category of information in the “public domain” which should be made available without a request for information. This is because they facilitate an understanding of environmental impacts and monitoring of industry performance. However, in practice, as can be seen from the case of JATAM, these essential documents are not online, downloadable, or onsite in accessible forms.

Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment

The Access Initiative (TAI) has been working in Indonesia with our partners Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL) and Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WAHLI) to promote proactive transparency and appropriate implementation of Indonesia’s Public Disclosure or FOIA Law. In a two year initiative called ”Strengthening Right to Information for People and the Environment” (STRIPE), we sought to empower communities in Indonesia to improve their environmental health through improved access to information on air and water quality in Serang and Jepara, Indonesia. The STRIPE project also pointed to the deficiencies in the FOI law and to the importance of increasing the capacity of government agencies to proactively release information. Obviously, there is still much work to be done, but it’s encouraging that a handful of dedicated groups are now endeavoring to bring to light the need for access to information. Through perseverance, groups like JATAM, ICEL, and WAHLI will continue to promote the proper implementation of FOI as an advocacy tool. But perhaps more importantly, they’ll push for the recognition that proactive transparency of environmental information is paramount. Proactive transparency will be discussed at the Open Government Partnership Summit in London this week on Civil Society Day. It is timely for the Indonesian government to consider this approach as it takes on the Presidency of the Open Government Partnership. Timely access to environmental information is what open government is about. More information: Read more about STRIPE here Read an article about STRIPE from TechPresident.com

Heavy Metals in the Water of Kriva Reka, Macedonia

By Kiril Ristovski (Posted: October 13, 2008) 

The waters that are close to the mine have indicated pollution of a level-5 category, and the concentrations of lead have been above the allowed maximum level.

Presence of the heavy metals above the maximum allowed level can be found in the waters of Kriva Reka. This is a clear assessment of the results under the State Inspectorate Kumanovo, even though the assessment is late by a few months. The pollution is closest to the manufactured capacity and to the arid part of the ROC “Toranica,” according of the toxicological analysis that has been obtained from the Institute for Health Protection on the Initiative of the Fishery Organization, “Mrena” from Kriva Palanka. Measurements were taken from the location across the mine, the exact spot of the waters of Toranicka Reka.

The presence of lead was 144 000 mg,kg, which is 5 times over the maximum allowed concentrations of 30 000. These examples correspond with level-5 category of water quality. The measurements of the Kriva Reka around the arid place were showing classification on waters that belong to level-3 and level-4 water quality category .But there is one important missing part in this analysis, which is there have not been measurements of lead or zinc. The waters of Kriva Reka that are close to the pumps for drinking water are in correspondence with level-2 category of water quality.

The State Inspectorate for the Environment has announced information about results which were showing much higher presence of heavy metals on the river around the mine Toranica, but they did not give more detailed answers about the pollution. The company, “Indo minerali I metali,” will be supplied agreements, with directions about the methods and procedures regarding the regulation and taking sanctions on the pollution in that region. This was the last response directly from the State Inspectorate for the Environment.

This company has claimed that from the beginning of the pollution of the river, they had been working under regular ecological standards, taking care of the environment protection, and that their analysis has been regular. They also said that if anything goes wrong by cause of their work, they would take care of everything to protect the natural resources.

The Governmental Institutions have been inaccessible for information The residents have been reacting for three months, and they did not have adequate official information. Also, Florozon, the NGO from Skopje (under the project TAI assessment in Macedonia), has been conducting assessment for the impact of the biggest polluters of the environment in Macedonia, and ROC “Toranica” has been taken under examination through this project.

Their assessments were focused on the public access to information, public participation and access right to justice, national transparency and Government contribution regarding the environmental protection and peoples’ rights. This initiative is the biggest net in the entire world and has commitments for citizen’s insurance regarding their rights and opportunities for participations in the decision making processes related with environmental issues.

The State Inspectorate for the Environment did not respond on the official request letter regarding the results from the conducted measurement and results of the water quality of Kriva Reka. They did not act according to the law, and after one month, no one has managed to get information from the State Inspectorate for the Environment. This kind of non-compliance is not acceptable because Macedonia is party to the Aarhus Convention. This convention is based on the access right to information, public participation in the decision-making process regarding the environmental issues, according to Florozon.

According to Florozon, the assessment for the access right to information, which have been obtained by Octa, Feni, Sasa and Pollution of Kamenicka Reka, has had a bad experience, so their final report that will be delivered to the European Institutions will contain negative values.

The next step after this assessment, according to Florozon, will be the implementation of the recommendations from the TAI assessment, with an aim for capacity building of the government and of the civil associations, in order for a strong national capacity to be built. The legal recommendations are directed toward changing the law’s articles and changing government practice.

Kiril Ristovski Skopje 02.10.2008

See Also:

Zinc and Lead Flowing Into the River of Kamenicka Reka

Freedom of Information Victory in India

By Lalanath de Silva (Posted: January 28, 2008)

For the first time in its ten-year history, the National Environmental Appellate Authority* (NEAA) has overturned a decision by the Government of India, quashing an environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In its decision, the Appellate Authority cited a failure of public participation and access to information.

On December 19, 2007, the NEAA quashed environmental clearance for the Polavaram Multipurpose project granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The project, which would have displaced close to 3000 families (totaling about 200,000 people) in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Chattisgarh, was to have included a hydroelectric power component of 960 MW and irrigation facilities. The project was proposed by the State of Andrah Pradesh.

The project was opposed by civil society organizations on the grounds that the required Environmental Impact Assessment had been performed inadequately, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests had failed to conduct any public hearings in the affected States of Orissa and Chattisgarh.

During the hearing, both States contended that the legally required environmental clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment without considering the opinion of the states though they were affected by submergence.

Immediately after the Appellate Authority’s decision, the State Government (Andrah Pradesh) filed a petition for the Andra Pradesh High Court (the highest court in the State) to review the case. The Court has now temporarily suspended the decision of the Appellate Authority and fixed a hearing for February 11.

The NEAA found that:

  • People to be affected by the project had no access to the executive summary in the notified place
  • People to be affected by the project had no opportunity to participate in public hearings and express their view on the likely environmental impact of the construction of the project

The Appeal against the clearance was filed by Dr R. Sreedhar of Academy for Mountain Environics and represented by Ritwick Dutta. Dutta is a leader of the TAI network in India, and is preparing to launch a formal, TAI assessment of access to justice, public participation, and access to information in Northern India.

*The National Environmental Appellate Authority is the only competent Authority set up by Parliament through an Act to hear appeals from aggrieved/ affected persons against the grant of environmental clearances by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to different projects across the country.

Links

Cut and Paste Fraud Suspected in Indian EIA

By Lalanath De Silva (Posted: January 15, 2008)

A Right to Information request in India has revealed that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a bauxite mining project in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, was copied at least in part from a Russian EIA for a bauxite mine. Variables in surface water quality, precipitation, bird and mammal densities, number of species and impacts of the projects match. The Indian EIA even listed tree species found only in northern temperate regions, such as Alaska, Norway and Russia.

Since 2005, the Indian Right to Information Act has allowed citizens to expose corruption in government and fraudulent practices in decision-making processes. EIAs are required for certain development projects that have significant impacts on the environment. Hundred of EIAs are being filed throughout India for development projects that range from hydroelectric dams to roadways and mining. Monitoring EIAs to ensure that environmental impacts are considered and eliminated or mitigated has become a huge challenge for civil society organizations. The Right to Information Act has become a useful tool in this Herculean task.The fraud in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra was exposed by Ritwick Dutta, an environmental lawyer with the help of Mark Chernaik, a staff scientist in the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide network. Ritwick Dutta is also a leader in the The Access Initiative (TAI) India network and will soon launch a TAI assessment for Northern India. The TAI assessment will reveal gaps in laws, institutions and practices relating to transparency, inclusiveness and accountability in government decision-making on environmental matters in Northern India.

The Access Initiative (TAI) seeks to ensure that people have a voice in the decisions that affect their environment and their communities. TAI partners promote transparent, participatory, and accountable governance as an essential foundation for sustainable development. To achieve this goal, partners form national coalitions, assess government progress using a common methodology, raise public awareness, and set priorities for improvements in policy and practice.

India was the site of a pilot TAI assessment; an assessment for the State of Karnataka is proceeding. TAI India partners have worked to achieve changes including intervening in Government efforts to abridge public information and participation rights in the environmental clearance process for development projects.

Freedom of Information Victory in Ukraine

By Lalanath De Silva (Posted: December 21, 2007)

An international NGO has set an important precedent for freedom of information in Ukraine by convincing a court that a Parliamentary advisory body should be subject to national freedom of information law.

The NGO Environment-People-Law (EPL)brought the case against the Accounting Chamber – a state body that executes control over the spending of funds from the State Budget on behalf of Ukraine’s Parliament. The Chamber had refused to disclose details about what it found when auditing a construction project partly funded by the government to build the Danube-Black Sea Canal through internationally recognized wetlands.

The Chamber had released some information about their audit, but not the level of detail sought by EPL. The Chamber had argued that the freedom of information law did not apply to them, and that they were only accountable to Parliament. EPL convinced the court that the Accounting Chamber in effect had not only a consulting function for the Parliament of Ukraine, but authority over members of the public as the Chamber owns the information that might be of public interest. The court ordered the Chamber to provide the information requested by EPL.

The ruling has two major implications, though they may not be articulated in the court decision itself. First, the function of investigating State expenditure (including possible corruption) was ruled to be a matter of public interest and public importance. Second, the court’s decision implied that because the Chamber performed a public function, it was subject to the national freedom of information act, even though the advisory group was not a part of the executive branch.

The case is a victory for advocates everywhere of freedom of information in environmental decision-making. A growing body of national laws and courts recognize that the public is entitled to know how tax revenues and aid funds are being spent and whether that expenditure meets accounting standards.

For more information on the case, visit the EPL website.

For background on this struggle, read about Olya Melen, the young EPL lawyer who won the prestigious Goldman Prize.

The Access Initiative (TAI) seeks to ensure that people have a voice in the decisions that affect their environment and their communities. TAI partners promote transparent, participatory, and accountable governance as an essential foundation for sustainable development. To achieve this goal, partners form national coalitions, assess government progress using a common methodology, raise public awareness, and set priorities for improvements in policy and practice. TAI partners in Ukraine have completed two assessments, and the World Bank has recently provided funds that will allow TAI Ukraine to implement Ukraine’s access rights commitments (made to the Partnership for Principle 10) and Aarhus Convention compliance mechanisms.

TAI congratulates EPL on their victory, and looks forward to working with its Ukrainian partners to further improve access rights.