The Access Initiative

Topics: Access to Information

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

Video: Changing Channels: Ukraine’s Chance to Save the Danube Delta

By Joseph Foti (Posted: February 9, 2009)

The Danube Delta is Europe’s largest wetland, but it is threatened. The Government of Ukraine wants to put a large canal, including a dam through the core area of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. This video tells the story of the fight to save the Delta, and how access rights-access to information, public participation, and access to justice are critical to preserving a global treasure.

Changing Channels: Ukraine’s Chance to Save the Danube Delta from Joe Foti on Vimeo.

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

Lead in Our Water – A Washington, DC Mystery

By Joseph Foti (Posted: March 22, 2008) 

As part of World Water Day, The Access Initiative (TAI) is releasing a case study of how in 2004, poor data dissemination put the citizens of the capital of the world’s richest country at risk from lead in their drinking water.

The following is an excerpt of a TAI publication on the role of public participation in government decision-making about the environment. The full publication will be published and posted online later this year.

Read this case study with the following question in mind: how did leaders of the capital of a country with robust scientific and technical expertise, as well as strong environmental information systems, show such poor information transparency and inflexibility that people rose up in protest?

Note that the problem was not an absence of technical data, but a lack of face-to-face communication. People need environmental information to be communicated to them in such a way that they understand and can act upon it.

A January 31, 2004 Washington Post article created a stir with a story about a strange environmental mystery: Tap water in thousands of District houses has recently tested above the federal limit for lead contamination.

Danger: Lead in City Drinking Water

Lead exposure can lead, over time, to serious health effects – brain damage, kidney damage, and other illnesses. Those at highest risk—young children and pregnant women—can be affected by even short exposures to high lead levels. But the Post article went on to say that authorities were “baffled” by the problem and had no idea how such a serious contaminant had become so widespread in the city’s water.

Subsequent Post articles—and the public hearings, administrative reviews, independent investigations, and a class action law suit that followed them—documented that the problem actually had not been discovered “recently.”

The Washington DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) had been detecting unhealthy levels of lead in city drinking water for over two years. However, the public often was not informed of the problem, and in other cases was told too late to take appropriate action, or with too little urgency to convey the seriousness of the health risk.

Thus, residents of Washington, D.C. faced not one, but two mysteries. How did so much lead get into the drinking water? And how could the government have known about it for so long without addressing the problem?

In fact, problems began in 2001, when water samples in 53 homes showed levels of lead that exceeded the national standard of 15 parts per billion. Based on these findings, WASA sped up existing plans and replaced lead service pipes in key areas of the municipal water system. But the problem persisted. National water regulations then required WASA to conduct a larger water quality survey, which found a serious, widespread problem throughout the city in June 2003. Lead levels in over 4000 homes exceeded acceptable levels.

Failure to Notify

Although WASA’s survey found high lead contamination during the summer, WASA failed to notify residents of their risk until November. Water regulations required WASA to place a very specific notice on each affected customer’s water bill stating:

“”SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR HEALTH.”

However, the notice that WASA sent out in November downplayed the seriousness of the problem. It left out key required phrases, including “in their drinking water” and “significant.”

Similarly, national law required WASA to conduct public meetings to inform people of the health risk and the actions they could take to avoid lead exposure. However, their advertisements for the meeting did not reveal the lead problem. Instead, they simply stated that the meeting would “discuss and solicit public comments on WASA’s Safe Drinking Water Act projects.”

As a result of the lack of urgency in WASA’s public communications, residents were slow to take action. Some residents who received the notices began buying bottled water, and discussed the issue with their neighbors, or shared information about it via email. Many had neglected the mailings, however, or didn’t understand them. One resident later told a reporter she had received a letter informing her that the lead in her water tested as “higher than the federal action level,” but she wasn’t sure if that was a good or bad result.

Front Page News

Months later, when the issue became front page news, the situation changed rapidly. Residents inundated WASA’s water hotline with calls and overwhelmed water testing laboratories with requests for their tap water to be tested for lead contamination. District elected officials immediately called for an emergency public meeting, and established an inter-agency task force to investigate and manage the problem. The task force included WASA, the Department of Health, the Washington Aqueduct, and representatives of eight other government bodies. It became the primary government vehicle for responding to the crisis.

Within four days of the initial news report, WASA itself worked with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Technical Experts Working Group, bringing together national experts to study the problem and identify a solution. Meanwhile, the inter-agency task force swiftly implemented programs to provide free water filters, water testing, and blood testing for residents at risk of lead contamination. It wrote letters to residents, established a hotline, conducted 23 community meetings, met with leading local organizations, and produced a range of outreach materials.

Conflicting Messages

However, over the six weeks following the initial Post exposé, successive public communications from WASA and other agencies contradicted each other and created confusion about who was at risk and what steps residents should take to protect their health. For example, WASA sent a letter in February to all residents suggesting they flush water through their taps for a minute and a half to reduce lead levels before drinking or cooking. But during the same week, the Environmental Protection Agency demanded that the recommendation be changed to 10 minutes.

Similarly, early WASA communications limited the health advisory to pregnant women and small children in residences with lead service lines. However, subsequent water testing found high levels of lead in the water of a significant number of residences with copper service lines, as well.

The Public Organizes

Expressions of public frustration grew in response to the mixed messages emerging from WASA and other public agencies. The public organized to share information and circulate petitions by launching internet sites like PureWaterDC.com and WaterForDCKids.org. Neighborhood meetings also were held to discuss the issue. Community organizations and elected leaders concluded that WASA had actively covered up the problem. Adding to the public mistrust was disclosure that a WASA employee, Seema Bhat, who had repeatedly warned WASA and EPA officials of the lead contamination, lost her job in 2003. She had won a legal claim of improper termination, which the city had appealed.

On March 18, nearly 100 people took part in a protest at City Hall led by a CSO coalition (Public Citizen). Also in March, a class action lawsuit was launched against WASA by a young lawyer, Chris Cole, and a neighborhood activist, Jim Meyers, who called on the government to give clear notification to affected residents, pay the full cost of lead pipe replacement, and compensate the plaintiffs for damages. To clarify the situation for the public, the government needs to “knock on doors, no more letters,” said Cole.

A Technical Solution

Meanwhile, the Technical Experts Working Group convened by WASA and the EPA had identified the cause of the elevated lead levels. They concluded that a new water treatment process introduced in 2001 had caused lead to leach from municipal water pipes into the water supply. Their hypothesis was confirmed in May 2004 when a return to the old treatment process caused lead levels to decrease immediately. They also recommended accelerating plans to further revise the water treatment system to include an anti-corrosion additive called orthophosphate.

By July 2006, lead in Washington D.C.’s water had remained within nationally mandated limits for a year and a half. Moreover, blood screenings found no identifiable public health impact from the period of lead contamination. With this finding, part of the mystery was solved.

New Laws, New Pipes, New Institutions

The question of how the government had failed to effectively notify residents of the problem was more complex to answer. The public outcry about the government’s initial response to the lead contamination led to independent investigations commissioned by government and civil society organizations, as well as EPA administrative orders censuring WASA, and a Congressional inquiry into EPA’s own oversight failures. Significant outcomes from these investigations include a multi-million dollar investment by WASA in the replacement of lead water pipes and an EPA proposal to revise national lead and copper regulations.

The investigations also identified serious problems with the institutional arrangements for water quality management and oversight in Washington DC. What with WASA, EPA, the City Council, the Army Corps of Engineers, Congress, and the Department of Health all involved, lines of authority, accountability and communications among agencies rarely were clear. To coordinate these players and centralize responsibility, a Department of Environment within the D.C. government was created.

This case study was written by Dave Turnbull and Heather McGray of the World Resources Institute, and is an excerpt of a forthcoming publication of The Access Initiative (TAI) on the role of public participation in government decisionmaking about the environment. Full citations can be found in the final version of the book, to be printed in hardcopy and posted online, later this year.

Related Links

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.

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.