The Access Initiative

Menu

Topics: Access to Information

The Best and Worst Countries for Environmental Democracy

By Jesse Worker (Posted: May 20, 2015)

The environment and human well-being are inextricably linked. When governments, businesses and others make decisions about land and natural resources, they inevitably impact the health, livelihoods and quality-of-life of local communities. So it stands to reason that the public should have a right to be involved in environmental decision-making—specifically, to know what is at stake, to participate in the decision itself, and to have the ability to challenge decisions that disregard human rights or harm ecosystems. These three fundamental rights are known as environmental democracy—and not all nations provide it to their citizens. The new Environmental Democracy Index (EDI) is the first-ever online platform that tracks and scores 70 countries’ progress in enacting national laws that promote transparency, accountability and citizen engagement in environmental decision-making. The analysis, based on 75 indicators, identifies the best and worst countries for environmental democracy. The results may surprise you.

The Top Countries with Strong National Laws for Environmental Democracy

The top three countries are all former Soviet states—Lithuania, Latvia and Russia. Many of their relevant national laws were enacted as part of democratization reforms in the 1990s and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) legally binding Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters. Lithuania and Latvia have both ratified this convention and strengthened their legislation after doing so, such as Lithuania’s amendments to its Law on Environmental Protection and Latvia’s passage of its Environmental Protection Law. Russia in particular may stand out to some as surprising, especially in light of several environmental activists recently fleeing the country out of fear for their freedom and safety. Therein lies a powerful lesson: Countries’ national laws may be quite progressive on paper, but the enforcement of those laws is oftentimes weak or subject to corruption. All of the top 10 performers have statutes to support the public’s right to access government-held environmental information such as forestry management plans or mining permits, and all of them require at least a majority of government agencies to place environmental information like air and drinking water quality information in the public domain. While public participation scored the lowest across the index, all of the top 10 countries provide the public with the right to participate in major, national environmental decisions, such as infrastructure projects, forest management planning, pollution permitting and more. Lithuania stands out for having the highest score on the justice pillar. Its Civil Procedure Code and Law on Environmental Protection provides for communities to bring environmental cases in the public interest. What’s also interesting about the top 10 performers is that wealth is not necessarily the defining factor of strong environmental democracy laws. Panama and Colombia are resource-strapped nations, and South Africa is an upper middle income country; nevertheless, they’ve committed to enacting strong environmental laws.

The Lowest-Scoring Countries for Environmental Democracy

Haiti, Malaysia and Namibia scored lowest on the index. Of the bottom 10 countries, some had right-to-information laws, but most lacked provisions requiring that government agencies proactively make environmental information public. In countries like Philippines, Republic of Congo and Pakistan, citizens need to go through time-consuming or expensive information requests to obtain crucial information like statistics on air or drinking water quality. The government may or may not honor these formal requests. Many of the bottom performers also lacked requirements on collecting environmental information and monitoring compliance. National governments in Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Bangladesh and Thailand do not actually ensure that factories, mines and other facilities aren’t harming people or the planet. And requirements for public participation in these countries are almost always limited to environmental impact assessments, leaving out other important decisions such as the development of forest management plans, protected area policies or environmental protection laws. One positive note is that even at the bottom of the list, Saint Lucia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Republic of Congo allow an individual to file lawsuits in the public interest. Otherwise, the right to challenge or appeal government or private sector decisions is not as well established in these countries.

There’s Room for Improvement Across the Board

Even in countries that scored relatively well, there’s still room for improvement. Almost 50 percent of the countries assessed, for instance, are not making real-time air quality data available online for their capital cities. And while nearly half of the countries require agencies to monitor environmental compliance, 64 percent of those with laws on the books do not release any information to the public on emissions or wastewater discharges, pollutants that can impact human health and the environment. And even if countries have strong laws on the books, it doesn’t mean that they are adequately enforced. EDI measured countries based on the existence of national laws, not implementation. However, supplemental to the legal index, EDI includes 24 indicators on environmental democracy in practice. These indicators are not comprehensive, but they do provide some key insights to allow some comparison with legal scores. National laws aren’t the only way to improve environmental democracy, but they’re an important first step. EDI can help governments who want to promote transparent, inclusive and accountable environmental decision-making by providing an index to benchmark progress, as well as examples of good practices from around the world. It’s time to give citizens a voice—for the good of the planet, and for the good of communities around the world.

CIC Orders Disclosure of Technical Report on Hydroelectric Project

By Preetadhar (Posted: April 9, 2015)

In a significant decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Niti Aayog (previously known as the Planning Commission) to make available the report of the Technical Expert Committee on the 2000 MW Lower Subansiri hydroelectric project. The Niti Aayog had refused to provide the information to Rohit Choudhury of EIA Resource and Response Centre (ERC), New Delhi, on the ground that the report had not been finalized and accepted by the Government. Disposing off the appeal, the Information Commissioner Shri Sharat Sabharwal held that the report should be disclosed to enable an informed debate and civil society participation.

The 2000 MW Lower Subansiri hydroelectric project has seen sustained resistance from civil society groups. Responding to the issues raised regarding the dam safety and the downstream impact of the project, the Planning Commission (now Niti Aayog) had constituted a Technical Expert Committee (comprised of C.D. Thatte and M.S. Reddy) to undertake an assessment of the project. The report of the Committee, not released in the public domain, was requested under the Right to Information Act in 2012.

It was argued by the Niti Aayog that the Report should not be disclosed as it would “create confusion in the mind of the public” and that its disclosure “may fuel further agitation, thereby endangering the life of the local people”. Categorically rejecting the argument of Niti Aayog, Information Commissioner Shri Sharat Sabharwal observed that that revelation of expert comments would enable all the stakeholders to have informed participation at the stage of formulation of the policy itself and that “agitation is more likely to be fuelled by uninformed debate in the absence of authentic information”.

It was also argued by the respondent that since the project concerned generation of electricity for two States (Assam and Arunachal Pradesh), it involved the economic interests of the State, and therefore sought exemption from disclosure. Rejecting this ground as well, Shri Sabharwal held that “there is no ground to deny the report sought by the Appellant”, and that the report should be provided free of cost. This is an important decision of the CIC, capturing the true spirit of the RTI Act its objective of an informed and participative civil society. The judgment, uploaded on the website of ERC, can be accessed here .

Q&A with Cécile Ndjebet: Empowering Women Is Key to Better Forest Management in Cameroon

By Stephanie Ratté (March 12, 2015) 

Roughly 70 percent of women in Cameroon live in rural areas, relying at least in part on natural resources like forests for their livelihoods. However, women often face particular challenges in accessing the forests they need. Differences in the ways men and women understand and use forests mean natural resource policies can result in significant gender-differentiated impacts that oftentimes put women at a disadvantage. Women’s lack of secure access to forests can lead to a variety of inequities, including limited decision-making power; more vulnerability for women who are unmarried, divorced, or widowed; and greater likelihood that forest conservation schemes like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) will not benefit women and men equally. As new programs seek to tackle deforestation in Cameroon, it’s imperative that these initiatives are not blind to gender differences in forest use and access. Cécile Ndjebet, a partner of WRI’s Governance of Forests Initiative, is a leading voice on gender and forest governance, both in Cameroon and internationally. Ndjebet serves as the director of civil society group Cameroon Ecology, coordinates the National Civil Society Organization Platform on REDD and Climate Change and heads the African Women’s Network for Community Management of Forests (Réseau des Femmes Africaines pour la Gestion Communautaire des Forêts or REFACOF). I recently caught up with her to talk about the challenges rural, forest-dependent women face in Cameroon, as well as solutions for overcoming these problems.

1. Why is it important for women to have secure access to forests in Cameroon? When women have clear and secure rights to forest land and resources, they are more likely to be able to access credit and technical assistance, manage resources sustainably, and are less dependent on marriage for security. Research on the link between gender and natural resource management demonstrates the critical and positive role that women can play in achieving environmental and development goals. In Nepal and India, for example, studies demonstrate that greater participation of women in forest management and decision-making processes at the community level are associated with better forest conservation.

2. What are the main challenges you face in your work? One is building the capacity of the government and other groups to recognize the importance of gender equality. I recently attended a workshop in Brazzaville and realized that people rarely understand why gender is important to consider in forest and natural resource management. Awareness is being raised now because of initiatives like REDD+. But we also need the political will of governments, greater capacity of civil society organizations and more resources for effective advocacy.

3. How can REDD+ help bring greater gender equity to natural resource governance in Cameroon? The government of Cameroon began developing its national REDD+ strategy in June of 2014 in order guide the implementation of incentives for the sustainable management of forests and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Cameroon Ecology is playing a key role. So far, the government is open to our participation, and we are working to gather real information from communities and villages so that the contributions of rural women and men can be inserted in the national REDD+ strategy. We also need to ensure that REDD+ programs implement safeguards to avoid creating or exacerbating gender inequalities. What I see in REDD+ is that it is a good opportunity. We don’t yet know exactly what we will get with carbon offsets, but the REDD+ process has created a more inclusive space for promoting the equitable management of resources. I always say to the communities: If REDD+ cannot bring the scale of resources we hope for, at least it can help strengthen participation and improve natural resource laws and regulations for rural men and women in Cameroon.

4. How is your organization working to build capacity to address gender-related challenges? We are conducting trainings with other NGOs on gender and REDD+. We have just finished three training sessions to help men and women understand how gender is important to natural resource management, especially in relation to climate change and REDD+. We have also developed a policy brief on women’s participation in Cameroon’s REDD+ experience. In Cameroon, we are also coordinating the National Civil Society Organization Platform on REDD and Climate Change, a venue where I have been able to influence how women participate in decision making. The platform was established in 2011 to enhance collaboration on REDD+ and climate change issues between civil society in Cameroon and the government. We now have women represented at local, district and national levels of the platform’s governance. We also succeeded in getting gender focal points in at least eight ministries dealing with natural resource management. But there is still progress that must be made. The important point is to ensure that women are not just present in meetings, but that they can actually influence decision-making processes. The work we’ve done is a starting point, but we need to increase awareness, capacity and resources. By strengthening women’s networks and partnering with men so they can be advocates for gender equality, we can make it clear that inequitable situations are not favorable for any kind of development.

5. How does access to information factor in? Information and communication are challenges. It can be difficult to reach rural communities in Cameroon because many of these areas lack electricity. In rural areas, most people—especially women—understand the local language, rather than French or English. If you want to be effective, you have to translate information into the local language, so we recognize that this can be a significant limiting factor in our work. Capacity to understand forest governance and gender issues is another barrier. We need to produce documents that are nontechnical, affordable and accessible. Within the REDD platform, we are building partnerships with rural radio stations and media at the district level. The advantage is that most of the villages do have access to radio. Next year, we intend to expand partnerships with rural radio programs to publish and transmit information to a larger audience.

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.

The Access Initiative: Priorities for 2015

Carole Excell (Posted: February 9, 2015)

It can be very hard sometimes to set down hopes, dreams and resolutions in writing. This year, the Access Initiative decided it was time to illustrate the network’s hopes and wishes for 2015.

The Access Initiative is a network of civil society organizations working all over the world to ensure that decisions being made about the environment are open, participatory and fair. We collaborated with one of our amazing members, Margaretha Quina from the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, to come up with images that represent 8 priorities for 2015.

We believe the achievement of this vision will help ensure the protection of people and a healthy planet.

View the full image here.

Research Reveals Jamaicans Still Have Limited Access to Information Despite Legislation

Rachel Mulbry (Posted: December 9, 2014)

A new report reveals that Jamaica’s progress on public participation and access to information is inadequate despite having enacted laws and establishing governance structures to enable this. The published report is the outcome of a partnership between The Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), Windsor Research Centre, Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation (CCAM) and the North Cockpit Country Local Forest Management Foundation to assess the state of access rights in Jamaica.

Access rights are: access to information, public participation and access to justice. The Jamaican TAI assessment, conducted over the period November 2013 to June 2014, was based on research using eighteen case studies that involve the use of access rights. The case studies covered a wide range of issues such as emergency events, air and water quality testing, approval of projects and reporting from facilities. These case studies were chosen for their relevance to areas of important biological diversity such as Cockpit Country, the Portland Bight Protected Area and Black River.

Entitled, “Environmental Information, Participation and Justice: An Assessment by The Access Initiative Jamaica”, the report reveals that while Jamaica has made significant strides in enacting laws on Access to Information and establishing independent and impartial courts and tribunals, there are severe limitations in the laws and practice in granting rights to the public to learn about and participate in projects, environmental policies and plans. A worrying issue uncovered is the delay in receiving decisions of courts and tribunals on environmental matters. This was highlighted in the case study of a request for information regarding the lease agreements for the Falmouth Cruise Ship pier made in September 2012. The request was denied by the Port Authority of Jamaica and an appeal was filed by JET to the Access to Information Appeals Tribunal. The appeal was heard on November 25, 2013 and December 3, 2013 and over one year later, the parties have not yet received the Tribunal’s decision.

The report not only identifies shortcomings in laws and practice but also outlines recommendations for reform. “It is anticipated that these findings will assist the Jamaican Government and civil society to make effective changes to promote access rights and strengthen the public’s voice in decisions that affects the environment and quality of life”, says Danielle Andrade, Legal Director of JET.

The TAI Jamaica Report was launched on November 20, 2014 at the Terra Nova Hotel in Kingston. The Jamaican coalition is part of The Access Initiative (TAI), a global coalition of civil society groups working to promote better access to information, participation, and justice in national‐level decisions that affect the environment in over 50 countries. The report was funded by the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund through a grant to the World Resources Institute (WRI) which is the secretariat for The Access Initiative (TAI). The report is now being circulated to key GOJ stakeholders and civil society partners. Read the executive summary here.

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.

Can Hi-Tech Mapping Technology Protect Traditional Land?

Article by Celine Lim, Yale F&ES ’15, originally posted on the Environmental Performance Index blog

An indigenous leader walks around the land, stopping at sites used for hunting, collecting nuts, and worship. The points are recorded using a handheld GPS device and then transferred to a computer. These points are overlaid with other land uses in the territory, and a map is produced. The map shows where oil-drilling sites are located on the same place as the community’s ancient burial ground, and where pollution from the oil operations runs through their main water source. The community now has evidence to make a case against the company. This scene was a novelty just a few years ago, but today, it is a reality for many communities around the world.

Can technology and the way it lets us understand the world help indigenous and traditional communities safeguard their resource rights? Or is it yet another imposition of modern progress on a vulnerable population? Those were the questions that brought together experts from the TAI network working in Malaysia, Guyana, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the TAI Fifth Global Gathering recently held in Bogotá. They were there to share just how they are testing the proposition that by using technology, those communities might be better able to map their land, its features, and monitor how they — or outside groups — use it. Such community or participatory mapping can indeed play a role in rights protection.

Community-based mapping and monitoring fulfill important purposes, especially when communities have control over data collection, management, and reporting. Many forest-dependent communities face incursions on their land from illegal logging, land grabs, and mining, but they often lack the tools needed to assert their rights to resources. With sufficient capacity and the right tools, communities can produce maps to document and prove their claims to resources. For example, if equipped with GPSes and the know-how to use one, they can record threats and the ensuing degradation through gathering live, place-specific evidence, and communicate these with their government, the mining companies, and a global audience.

Read the full story here: http://epi.yale.edu/the-metric/can-hi-tech-mapping-technology-protect-traditional-land

Recommendations of the High Level Committee to Review Environmental Laws in India

By Preetadhar (Posted: November 25, 2014)

Soon after the election of the new Government, a “High Level Committee” was constituted to review a list of Acts administered by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), namely: – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

The Committee was chaired by T.S.R. Subramanian, a former Cabinet Secretary, and comprised three other members, a retired judge of the Delhi High Court, former Secretary of the MoEF&CC and former Additional Solicitor of India.

After approximately 3 months of its constitution, and holding some regional Meetings, the Committee submitted its recommendations to the Government. We have been able to access a summary of the recommendations, which provides an insight into the possible direction of reform of framework of environmental laws in India.

Summary of Recommendations

  1. Identify and pre-specify ‘no go’ forest areas, mainly comprising “Protected Areas” and forest cover over 70% canopy.

  2. MoEF&CC to define the term ‘forest’.

  3. Offer economic incentives for increased community participation in farm and social forestry by way of promoting and proving statutory safeguards to ‘treelands’ as distinct from forest.

  4. Plantation of approved species on private lands for compensatory afforestation with facility for ‘treeland’ trading.

  5. Revise procedure for clearance under Forest (Conservation) Act to reduce the time for granting clearance, without compromising the quality of examination. For linear projects it is recommended that The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 needs amendment to consider removal of the condition of Gram Sabha approval.

  6. The compensatory afforestation (CA) guidelines be revised; CA on revenue land to be enhanced to 2:1 as against 1:1 at present; CA in degraded forest land be now fixed at 3:1; the Net Present Value (NPV) should be at least 5 times the present rates fixed. An appropriate mechanism to be created to ensure receipt of the CA funds, and their proper utilization, delinking the project proponent from the CA process, after he obtains other approvals, and discharges his CA financial obligations.

  7. The quantum of NPV for compensatory afforestation needs to be sharply increased. A reliable mechanism for ensuring that CA is actually implemented, utilising either private or forest land, needs to be put in place.

  8. Schedule 1 to be amended to include species likely to be threatened by illegal trade. An expert group should review the existing Schedules and address discrepancies relating to several species and sub species.

  9. Regarding the issue of tackling damage to agriculture and farmland, the MoEF&CC may issue circulars to all states apprising them of the legal position, suggesting that they may take appropriate action based on legal provisions.

  10. Preparation of Wildlife Management plans should be made mandatory and a provision to this effect inserted in the Wildlife Protection Act.

  11. Amend the Wildlife Protection Act [Section 26A sub section (3) and section 35(5)] so that permission from the Central Government would only be necessary when the State Government proposes to reduce the boundaries of an existing protected areas.

  12. Manufacture and possession of leg and mouth traps should be completely prohibited, except where they are required for visual display for educational purposes.

  13. Officers entrusted with the task of settlement should be given minimum tenure of 2 years. Regular review of such work should be done to ensure completion within time.

  14. ‘Expert status’ to be given to the forensic facility of Wildlife Institute of India (WII), after suitably strengthening it.

  15. Amend provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act [Section 50 and 55] to provide for adequate and purposeful delegation appropriate for faster and better prosecution in respect of a wildlife crime.

  16. Authorise officers of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau under the MoEF&CC to file complaints in Courts.

  17. Add Polythene bags and plastic bottles as “injurious substances” and ban their use inside sanctuaries by amending the Wildlife Protection Act

  18. MoEF&CC to take immediate steps for demarcation of eco-sensitive zones around all the protected areas; States may be asked to send proposals in a time-bound manner.

  19. Delegate the powers to approve applications for bona fide observations research, through photography, including videography to the level of Park Director after verifying the credentials.

  20. The Schedules should provide appropriate provision for taking into account the needs of local festivals, subject to no harm or injury to animals.

  21. Proposals to revamp this project clearance / approval process.

  22. Create National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) at Central Level and State Environment Management Authority (SEMA) at the state level as full time processing / clearance / monitoring agencies.

  23. Proposed composition, functions and responsibilities of NEMA.

  24. Proposed composition, functions and responsibilities of SEMA.

  25. Proposed revised project approval process envisages ‘single window’ unified, streamlined, purposeful, time bound procedure.

  26. Special treatment for linear projects, power / mining and strategic border projects.

  27. Review of A/B category units, to delegate a large number brought under the purview of SEMA.

  28. The present monitoring process, exclusively based on physical inspection should be strengthened by induction of technology, measuring instruments incorporating latest improvements; the standards setting and verification systems need to be tightened, to ensure all violators are identified.

  29. (i) Create a new ‘umbrella’ law- Environmental laws (Management) Act (ELMA) – to enable creation of the institutions NEMA and SEMA. (ii)Induct the concept of ‘utmost good faith’, holding the project proponent responsible for his statements at the cost of possible adverse consequences

  30. The new law to prescribe new offences, as also for establishing special courts presided over by session judge. ‘Serious offences’ as defined to attract heavy penalties, including prosecution / arrest.

  31. Abatement of central and State Pollution Control Boards on creating of NEMA/SEMA.

  32. Suggestion for incorporation of noise pollution as an offence in Environment Protection Act.

  33. Procedure for appeals- creation of an appellate tribunal.

  34. Judicial Review role of National Green Tribunal.

  35. (i) Establish a National Environment Research Institute, through an Act of Parliament. (ii) Identify specific technical institutions / universities in India to act as technical advisors to the proposed NEMA/SEMA and other environmental enforcement agencies, to provide credible technical back-stopping for management of the environment.

  36. An Indian Environment Service may be created, as an All India Service, based on qualifications and other details prescribed by MoEF&CC/DoPT/UPSC.

  37. Encourage specialization in the Indian Forest Service in various aspects of forests and wildlife management, among the members of the service, as well as familiarity with all aspects of management of environment.

  38. The MoEF&CC may like to undertake a comprehensive review of departmental forces management policies, practices and procedures, to initiate wide-ranging improvements and reforms. This preferably should not be an internal exercise, and should include independent knowledgeable experts from India and abroad, as well as qualified researchers.

  39. The MoEF&CC may consolidate all existing EIA notifications/ circulars/ instructions into one comprehensive set of instructions. Amendments or additions may normally be done only once a year.

  40. The MoEF&CC may arrange to revamp the Environment Protection Act, by inducting relevant provisions of the Water Act, 1977 and the Air Act,1981; the latter two could be repealed, when the revamped EP Act, 1986 comes into force. This exercise may be done keeping in view the provisions of the proposed Environment Management Act.

  41. Create an Environment Reconstruction Fund for facilitating research, standard setting, education and related matters.

  42. (a) While overall responsibility vests with the ministry, the State Governments and the local bodies will play an effective role in management of the environment. (b) The Government should provide dedicated budgetary support for environmental programmes as a part of each development project in all the sectors

  43. Creation of a comprehensive database, using all instruments available, on an ongoing basis, in respect of all parameters relating to environment

  44. Environmental mapping of the country, using technology, should be undertaken as an ongoing process.

  45. Identification & recovery of environmental reconstruction cost relating to each potentially polluting unit should be built in the appraisal process.

  46. Rework the system of empanelment of ‘consultants’.

  47. A ‘green awareness’ programme needs to be sponsored, including issues relating to environment in the primary and secondary school curriculum

  48. MoEF&CC should prepare regional plan for carrying out remediation of polluted sites in consultation with the State Governments and enabling provisions should be incorporated in Environment Protection Act for financing the remediation task.

  49. Municipal Solids Waste (MSW) management has not been given requisite attention hitherto. New system and procedures for handling MSW need to be in place early for effective management of MSW and with accountability. Cities should set a target of reaching 20% of current level in 3 years time to work out a mitigation plan

  50. Concerted multi-pronged effort to not only to contain, and improve the situation of deterioration of air quality by vehicle emission.

  51. Encourage the use of science and technology, including by the approval and enforcement agencies.

  52. Finalise the CRZ demarcation, and bring it into public domain.

  53. In view of the key role played by the power sector, as also mining of various minerals in national development, NEMA may have a suitable cell, with specialisation, to speedily deal with environmental approvals in these sectors, with due regard to environmental considerations.

  54. All specified type of units would employ fully qualified technical personnel to manage their pollution control / management equipment, and to keep the emission levels within prescribed limits.

  55. MoEF&CC may consider reworking standard setting and revising a system of financial penalties and rewards to proceed to a market-related incentive system, which encourages ‘green projects’.

Mapping Indigenous Natural Resources: There’s an App for That

Article by Grace Heusner, Yale Law School ’16  (Posted: November 24, 2014)

The Mbenjele Look for Answers

In the mid-2000s, the Mbendjele Yaka pygmies of northern Brazzaville-Congo faced a problem. Environmental conservation groups were accusing them of widespread poaching of elephants, gorillas, and other bushmeat. While the Mbendjele did engage in subsistence hunting, they suspected that larger organizations were responsible for the majority of poaching. Yet they had no way to prove it. The Mbendjele were largely illiterate and had only limited ways of communicating with the outside world. While the group previously had success with icon-based applications to battle illegal logging in their forests, the Mbendjele now needed something more versatile. Searching for answers, they approached, Dr. Jerome Lewis, a University College London researcher who had been working with pygmies in the Congo for many years.

The Development of Sapelli

This need prompted Dr. Lewis to develop Sapelli with his organization, Extreme Citizen Science (“ExCiteS”). Sapelli is an icon-based mobile phone application that can be used to record GPS coordinates. Users select appropriate icons that describe an action or occurrence and plot its specific location. The Mbendjele used the app to record evidence of illegal poaching. Because Sapelli is open source, it can be customized for a variety of scenarios.

View the rest of the story here: http://epi.yale.edu/the-metric/mapping-indigenous-natural-resources-theres-app