Published: 2008
This publication addresses the following questions, challenges and benefits: Why is the right to access public information essential to achieve inclusive governance? How is it a useful tool for companies? How does this right contribute to the development of a dependable and predictable business environment? Why is the private sector the one that exercises this right the least in Argentina? What is the situation in other countries in the region?
By Lalanath de Silva (Posted: February 17, 2009)
This is a video story about how the Environmental Foundation Ltd. (EFL), a public interest environmental law organization in Sri Lanka activated the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and saved the only open ocean waterfront in the capital city of Colombo. The court also affirmed the right of the public to have access to information. If you cannot view the video from the video frame below you can do so by clicking here
The Galle Face Green had been dedicated to the public by an order of the colonial British Government in 1856. Since that time the Green had been used by the city’s public as a recreational area. The Urban Development Authority (UDA) had decided to hand over the public space to a private company to develop it as a built up amusement park. Although admission to the park would have been free, the amusements themselves would have to be paid for by the public.
The UDA had run an advertisement in a widely circulating national newspaper that the project was “More Transparent than Glass”. But when EFL asked the UDA for a copy of the agreement it had signed with the private company, it refused to give it a copy. EFL filed a human rights violation case in the Supreme Court. EFL argued that the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in the Sri Lankan constitution included the right to seek and receive information from the Government. Ms. Ruana Rajapakse, legal counsel who represented EFL shares her thoughts on this video.
The private company filed a copy of the agreement in court. The court decision affirmed the right of the public to have access to information. The court inferred that right from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in the Constitution of Sri Lanka. It ruled that the freedom of expression included the right to seek and receive information from the Government in certain situations. The court also annulled the agreement saying that the UDA did not have the power to hand over the Green which had been dedicated to the public. Subsequently, the new Minister for Urban Development and Sacred Area development, the Hon. Dinesh Gunawardene (also featured on this video) decided to establish a national steering committee to examine transparency, accountability and inclusiveness in the urban sector and to introduce public participation into local government budgeting and decision-making processes.
By David Heller (Posted: February 13, 2009)
Canada, like many of its neighbors, is struggling to balance the competing needs of economic improvement and environmental protection during this global depression. Included in Canada’s 2009 federal budget, recently presented to Parliament, are suspicious provisions that encourage “regulatory efficiency” in infrastructure projects designed to jump start their lagging economy. Leaked documents suggest that this expediency might come at the cost of weakening the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), a price that many Canadian environmentalists are not willing to pay.
Under the current CEAA, federal departments, agencies, and crown corporations must conduct environmental impact assessments (EIA) for proposed projects where the federal government is the proponent, or where the project involves federal funding, permit, or license. These EIAs, though frequently ridiculed for causing delays in the construction process, are often the only means people have to participate in assessing government projects and intervening when such projects are perceived to have unwarranted environmental costs.
The budget that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced to Parliament on January 27th devoted more than $2 billion towards transforming the Canadian economy into a sustainable and environmentally friendly one, but also included provisions that might undermine this process by making certain projects exempt from EIA oversight.
Authors of the 2009 budget claim that full compliance with CEAA impedes Canada’s economic recovery. “Currently,” the budget states, “infrastructure approval processes are subject to duplication and inefficiencies in administration, leading to unnecessary project delays.”
In order to address this perceived flaw, the budget says that “…regulatory efficiencies will be pursued for projects subject to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.” [Emphasis added].
Leaked documents received by the left New Democrats Party indicate that this interest could manifest itself in several forms. The first possible route being examined is eliminating the need for EIAs on certain infrastructure projects costing less than $10 million. Another option is reducing oversight on bigger projects, which currently require separate EIA assessment at the provincial and federal levels.
In line with this first option, the Toronto Star reports that Federal Infrastructure Minister John Baird is targeting certain less costly and “environmentally friendly” projects for EIA exemption. As Baird says, “We’ve got a lot of rules in place to stop bad things from happening, but we don’t have anything to help good things happen, particularly for things like public transit and waste-water treatment that improves water quality.”
The other alternative being tinkered with by Conservatives is designed to combat the time cost associated with fulfilling the EIA mandate. Echoing the redundancy cited in Canada’s official budget proposal, Baird told several newspapers that, “There’s a real hodge-podge of environmental assessment requirements – of overlap and duplication. Many of them are just duplicating what’s done at the provincial level.”
There is legitimacy to these latter concerns given the depression and the immediate economic value that construction can bring. But the logic behind the first option, that certain projects (like water treatment plants or public transit infrastructure) ought to be exempt from an EIA because their purpose is to mitigate environmental harm, is terribly flawed.
Barring the invention of environmentally friendly bulldozers, shovels, and the like, a project’s finished product ought to not blind Canadians to the harm that the project’s construction might wreak on surrounding areas. For this reason, allprojects, regardless of their purpose and cost, must be subject to at least one EIA.
As alluded to earlier, the EIA also provides a valuable civic service to the Canadian people. Jamie Kneen of Mining Watch Canada, an environmental watchdog organization, highlighted the fact that the EIA can facilitate the exchange of information between people while allowing public concerns about certain government actions to be addressed.
“Whether it’s a small footbridge or a huge open-pit mine, if a project is badly designed or if it’s just a bad idea to begin with, the public needs a way to make sure it is fixed or stopped,” Kneen said.
Ongoing debates within governments are framed within the anachronistic concept that economic recovery must come at the expense of environmental harm. It is necessary to forego these false zero-sum boundaries, by tethering economic growth to spending that will have positive short- and long-term implications for the environment. Only EIA-approved investment that addresses climate change, taps into renewable sources of energy, and creates sustainable and healthy communities can effectively satisfy the two public goods of economic recovery and environmental protection.
Please continue checking back to see how the planet’s governments are responding to this universal challenge.
By David Heller (Posted: February 6, 2009)
At the upcoming United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Governing Council meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, delegates will have the unprecedented opportunity to extend the adoption of important principles – a peoples’ right to access information, participate in their government’s decision making process, and seek redress in matters affecting the environment – to states around the world. But in preliminary negotiations, not all delegations were sanguine about committing to spread the codification of these principles globally.
In 2008, a select group of high-level external experts and judges, in consultation with the UNEP secretariat, was formed to draft principled guidelines that direct developing countries in the creation of national legislation protecting these access rights.
But alone, these guidelines can not compel state action. So the UNEP secretariat also drafted a complementary resolution, on how the Council should act upon the principles and work to ensure states reflect them in new law.
As it’s currently written, the draft resolution is that the Council:
Decides to adopt the guidelines for the development of national legislation on access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters as set out in the [guidelines]… [Emphasis added]
Adoption of the guidelines by the Council would be a very positive, symbolic step for UNEP and the spread of the access principles. But, this language is not immune from alteration, and indeed, has already been compromised.
During preliminary discussions, several delegations, allegedly including the American contingent, expressed interest in replacing “adopt” with “take note of,”a subtle proposal with profound implications for the strength of UNEP’s commitment.
It is imperative that this change not occur.
If the Council were to merely “take note of” the guidelines, then they would be sending the wrong message to member countries: that it would be sufficient for all to do the same. While “adoption” implies an unequivocal recognition that the guidelines are desirable and binding, “taking note of” is pleasantly ambiguous and leaves far too much room for them to be ignored. The Council, by “taking note” of the guidelines, would simply be recognizing that they exist; a far cry from guaranteeing that the guidelines serve their namesake’s purpose and direct future action: a small but far from trivial distinction.
This proposed change will not go unopposed. The Access Initiative (TAI) has been working hard to leverage its influence and keep the language unmolested. Attending the meeting in Nairobi and advocating on TAI’s behalf will be Mr. Augustine Njamnshi, TAI coordinator in Cameroon, and part of the official UNEP Cameroonian delegation.
TAI has also harnessed support from its allies in the Irish and Argentine delegations, who share its concern over the dilution of the original language and will be advocating for the Council to remain committed to adoption, as the initial draft explicitly recommends.
The American delegation’s alleged complicity to the proposed change was particularly alarming. Given the Obama administration’s newfound commitment to promoting transparency and public participation in its own government, it appears as though the sea change in U.S. politics has not yet filtered down to affect the composition nor stance of its Nairobi delegation. But surely they must have been briefed on their new boss’s priorities. It’s baffling as to why the State Department Officials, representing the new administration, might be willing to water down stronger language when they arrive at the negotiating table.
Not only would U.S. support of weak language be inconsistent with its existing commitments, the U.S. delegation should consider its snowballing effects. Other nations, particularly China, will be emboldened by any U.S. disapprobation of the existing recommendations, making efforts to spread access principles beyond parties to the Aarhus Convention that much more challenging.
If any change is to be made to the initial draft of the proposed action document, it should include language that commits delegates towards creating a proper convention in the future – similar to the existing Aarhus Convention, but global in scope. Because the Aarhus parties are strictly European and Central Asian in origin, creating a similar scheme in Nairobi, where both developed and developing countries will have a presence, would be a step towards globalizing access principles. And that is an ideal that all delegations ought to be striving towards.
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.
By David Heller (Posted: January 30, 2009)
The Obama administration’s emphasis on transparency and public participation in government was echoed in a recent introductory memorandum that Lisa Jackson, the newly appointed administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), circulated to her staff.
This commitment to access principles – a clear deviation from recent EPA precedent – will face an immediate test.
In the memo, Jackson describes her vision of how EPA, under her leadership, will uphold transparency and public participation in its work. As she says,
Public trust in the Agency demands that we reach out to all stakeholders fairly and impartially… and that we fully disclose the information that forms the bases for our decisions. I pledge that we will carry out the work of the Agency in public view so that the door is open to all interested parties and that there is no doubt why we are acting and how we arrived at our decisions.
Of particular interest to Jackson is soliciting input from marginalized, impoverished, and minority populations, whom as she says, “have been historically underrepresented in EPA decision making.”
This interest in improving external transparency is complemented by a hope for more inclusiveness within the EPA itself.
“As I develop my agenda,” Jackson informed her staff, “I will be seeking your guidance on the tasks that are most urgent in protecting public health and the environment and on the strategies that EPA can adopt to maximize our effectiveness and the expertise of our talented employees.”
Jackson is not the only EPA administrator who has sought to introduce transparency and participation in the agency’s actions.
In 1983, then-EPA administrator William D. Ruckelshaus released a similar in-house memorandum that outlined many related concepts.
Ruckelshaus famously spoke of his desire to have EPA operate “in a fishbowl.” His influential memo went on to say,
EPA will provide, in all its programs, for the fullest possible public participation in decision-making. This requires not only that EPA employees remain open and accessible to those representing all points of view, but also that EPA employees responsible for decisions take affirmative steps to seek out the views of those who will be affected by the decisions. EPA will not accord privileged status to any special interest group, nor will it accept any recommendation without careful examination.
But these principles did not permeate through all forthcoming EPA administrations. Stephen Johnson, EPA’s leader under G.W. Bush, was accused of repeatedly ignoring the scientific findings of agency scientists and relaxing standards for polluters.
This legacy of partisanship, combined with a shrinking budget (over the past six years, EPA’s budget has fallen by $1.3 billion, or 15 percent) and diminished authority over regulatory matters, has led many to question EPA’s credibility and whether or not it’s capable of fulfilling its environmental protection mandate.
Russell Trail, EPA administrator during the Nixon and Ford eras, has gone so far as to say that, “EPA has become a nonentity.”
Likewise, during Jackson’s Senate confirmation hearing, Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told Jackson “The EPA needs to be awakened from a deep and nightmarish sleep.”
Consider the alarm sounded, to the tune of a massive spending package with clear environmental implications. Contained in the stimulus bill just passed in the U.S. House of Representatives is a $151 billion infrastructure component, consisting of large scale transportation and construction projects. It’s up to EPA to oversee the monitoring of environmental impacts and mitigations of these allocations, and to diligently enforce environmental standards when violations arise.
Though weakened, our nation’s official environmental steward must not claim defeat. Instead, amnesia would be more appropriate, as the time is ripe for EPA to reemerge as a vigilant enforcer of environmental standards. Jackson must prove that she can lead her agency in consonance with the principles outlined in her memo and not fall victim to the flaws of her predecessor. If she can manage to do this, then not only will EPA re-gain some of what it has lost, it can help guarantee that transparency and public participation in environmental policymaking will be here to stay. It’s a win-win situation that Jackson ought to take advantage of, and that Mother Earth will thank her for.
Stay tuned for updates on how well Jackson’s EPA is upholding its commitment to access principles, as money for the stimulus bill is doled out.
By Kiril Ristovski (Posted: January 13, 2009)
In the last period one of the cases which was subject of research in Macedonia was the case of the big polluter Refinery OKTA. One of the recommendations of the TAI report related to the legal legislator was the change in the Environmental law Article 212 i.e. increasing the minimal fines to 100 000 euros for the legal and natural persons who cause pollution or harm the environment.
The changes in the environmental regulations should be credited to the citizens. In Skopje massive strikes and blocades were organized for more than ten days. We at Florozon reacted heavily in the media and by influencing the media managed to influence the central government. What is important is that we call on our work i.e. the conducted research in the case of OKTA. Florozon lit the fire against the polluters when we published several TAI stories in the daily newspaper Dnevnik. In December, our organization carried out events, TV programs, and interviews in order to change things for better.
The first recommendation in the TAI Report in Macedonia has been implemented. Massive protests organized by the local inhabitants and Florozon’s lobbying influence brought the issue media attention. Through increased media attention and meetings with the government on the basis of the data from the TAI Research changes were achieved in the legal environmental regulation.
On 19th December the changes were implemented in the Environmental law. In the Environmental law in Article 212 bullet 1 the amount from 8000 -10 000 euros was changed with the amount from 70 000 100 000 euros. Also, the Government obliged to set up several stations for measurements in order to measure the pollution coming from Refinery OKTA.
We are pleased with this decision and the improvement that was made concerning the Environment in Macedonia.
Published: 2008
Locked up, hungry and confused, the two young men from the Molboc Tribe were finally released. They do not regret what they did. They will likely do it again if they have a chance to do so… just to put food on the table, as how their ancestors, as native fisherfolk in Balabac, Palawan, had done before.
For over two decades, members of the Molboc tribe, as well as local communities in the southern Palawan of town of Balabac, have had to endure harassment and ill-treatment from the security forces of a pearl farm corporation, which was prohibiting them, unjustly, and without any legal basis, from fishing in their traditional fishing grounds.
Calls for the local government unit (LGU) to mediate and facilitate a system for the peaceful co-existence of the pearl farm and the fisherfolks were ignored. Instead, in early 2005, the Municipality of Balabac enacted an ordinance declaring the entire municipal waters as a “Protected Eco-Region”, where fishing activities are prohibited but pearl farming is allowed.
The Ordinance came to pass notwithstanding the constitutional mandate of substantive and procedural due process, and the various legal provisions of guaranteeing citizen’s right to informed and meaningful participation in the formulation of policies concerning the management and conservation of their community’s natural resources.
In 2005, TAI – Philippines conducted a case study following the TAI Methodology that focused on (a) public access to information on the grounds for the Subject Policy, and (b) the opportunities for participation extended to the public in the enactment of the Subject Municipal Ordinance. Primarily, the actions of two government agencies – the LGU of Balabac and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) of Palawan, which reviewed and approved the Subject Municipal Ordinance – were evaluated. A total of 43 indicators (20 for access to information and 23 for opportunities for participation) were examined.
TAI – Philippines also conducted a re-assessment of the case focusing on access to justice as one of the pilot case using the Poverty Tool Kit. It was written from the point of view of the poor groups, small fishers and indigenous peoples in the Balabac case.
The importance of access to information and opportunities for participation cannot be overemphasized in this case. Given the affected communities’ history of disenfranchisement and repression, any environmental measure that would have the effect of depriving them of their traditional fishing grounds, or restricting their use of the same, requires intensive social preparation.
Widespread information dissemination and extensive community consultations must be undertaken not only to ensure that the proposed policy will be understood and well received by the individuals and communities affected, but also to make sure that substantive rights are not run over rough shod, and equity in access is ensured.
In this case, not only did the Municipality of Balabac fail to observe the foregoing processes, it also adopted a policy, purportedly for environmental protection purposes, that goes against international principles, Philippine statutory provision and established coastal resource management practices (i.e., it allowed pearl farming in a core or strict protection zone). The confluence of these circumstances has given rise to a public perception, whether rightly or wrongly, that the Subject Policy was adopted solely to accommodate Jewelmer’s Co. (the pearl farm) interests and to legitimize the prohibition that it has, for many years, foisted upon the affected communities without the sanction of law.
As things stand, it appears that the court case is the affected communities’ last remaining legal remedy. However, given the existing realities, resort to judicial action has not proven to be a speedy and adequate remedy. To date, the case remains pending, almost one year since its inception, and the Affected Communities continue to languish in poverty as they await its resolution.
It may be concluded that this predicament can be attributed to two main factors, namely: (a) gaps in existing laws; and (b) the failure of political will, the lack of a deep-seated orientation on, and capacity to implement, principles on access to information and opportunities for participation, on the part of the concerned government agencies.
It is hoped that policy reforms, enforcement actions and capability building measures, if implemented, will not only provide the affected communities with means for immediate relief, but will also prevent other IPs and fishing communities from being placed in a predicament similar to theirs, and render the processes involved less susceptible to manipulation to favor vested interests.
TAI – Philippines Case Study Writer: Atty. Jose Florante Pamfilo
See: TAI – Philippines Poverty Case Report
TAI – Philippines Case Study attached.
Posted by Monika Kerdeman
The Yunnan coalition started their TAI assessment process during a training workshop from Jan 13-15, 2008, led byTAI core team partner Thailand Environment Institute. The coalition of civil society groups includes Eco-Watch, Yunnan Academy of Social Science (YASS), Yunnan Institute of Environmental Science (YIES), Yunnan Environmental Science Society (YESS) and Centre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies ICRAF-China, the coalition’s lead organization.
At the workshop, coalition members were trained on the TAI Assessment Toolkit. Since the training, the Yunnan TAI coalition translated the indicators in the TAI Assessment toolkit into Chinese, and gathered information and relevant documentation, laws, regulations and guidelines for review.
As part of their research, Yunnan coalition members met with the Provincial Water Bureau, Yunnan Provincial Environment Protection Bureau, Agricultural Bureau, Yunnan Provincial Forestry Department, Vegetative Protection Station, Air Quality Monitoring Station, local agricultural stations, environmental protection stations and other related sectors to acquire more information. Interviewees included experts, villagers, and consumers as well as local authority staff.
The Assessment in Yunnan examines eight case studies on access to information. These studies are on various environmental issues including; the state of environment report of Yunnan Province, air quality monitoring in Kunming city, accidental explosion at a sulfur depot and vitriol factory of the Sanhuan chemical company, noise quality monitoring in Kunming city, environmental information of Yuntianhua International Chemical Company in Yunnan, monitoring of drinking water quality in Songhuaba reservoir in Kunming, GMO information monitoring in Yunnan, and paraquat herbicide accidents in Yunnan.
Five case studies on public participation are: public participation in environment protection decisions in eco-tourism policy in Diqing prefecture, public participation in the urban agglomeration development plan in south of Yunnan, public participation in the extension project of the 2nd hospital of Kunming, public participation in the water saving regulatory of Kunming city, public participation in decision-making of Provincial Forestry Development Strategy and public participation in the environmental impact assessment of the construction of Honghe Steel Factory..
The research also looks at access to justice. The access to justice case studies are on pesticide residue information in food – claimed by people to the people’s congress, public’s claim on the dam building on Salween River, local residents’ collective claim on old trees felled by a company in Baiyu Village, Xishan District of Kunming, and the claim on the pollution accident of Longma Phosphorous Chemical Company in Xundian, Yunnan.
By Ritwick Dutta (August 16, 2008)
There are reasons to smile for the members of the Idu Mishmi community in the North Eastern State of Arunachal Pradesh located in the Himalayan Mountain Ranges: The Government on 13-08-08 has cancelled the proposed Public Hearing for the proposed 3000 MW Hydel Power Dam to be located in Dibang District of Arunachal Pradesh.
For more than a year, local tribal communities have been protesting against the dam touted to be among the highest in the Country on the ground that it woud devastate the fragile ecology and destroy the culture and livelihood of the Idu Mishmi Community numbering only 8000 Individuals.
The Dibang Dam is a classic instance of a fight of a local community for access to Information and Participation and a partial victory of the community. When the first Public Hearing was announced, local tribal community sent a legal notice through Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) requesting for postponement of the hearing in view of the fact that the Environment Impact Assessment Report was not available at designated places and only an electronic version was made available in a state where people hardly had access to Internet. The Government relented and directed that no Public Hearing be conducted till the required EIA Reports are made available at the designated places for access to the community. The Public Hearing was planned over two phases. The first Public Hearing saw large scale protests by community members.
As the Public Hearing process was underway, in a shocking development aimed clearly at undermining the Public consultation process, the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh decided to lay the foundation stone for the project at Itanagar, the State Capital located more than 500 Km from the project site ! This was met with stiff opposition both locally and nationally.
Finally, the date for the second Public Hearing was fixed on 20-8-2008. However, the community was shocked to learn that the place for conducting the Public Hearing was more than 100 Km from the affected villages and project site. The Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 provides for conducting the Public Hearing in or in proximity to the project site. In the North Eastern Part of the country characterized by undulating terrain and heavy rainfall travelling 100 Km could very well take even upto a day’s journey.
The Community members with the support of Neeraj Vagholikar of NGO Kalpavriksh contacted Rahul Choudhary, Environmental lawyer and member of TAI Himalayan Coalition who immediately shot off a legal notice during the first week of August, 2008 citing violation of Principles of Natural Justice and provisions of the EIA procedure by conducting the Public Hearing at such a distant place which would make it difficult for the affected community to participate and thereby defeating the whole purpose of Public Hearing.
See also A Public Hearing without the ‘real’ public: Notes from TAI Himalayas
On 13th August, Community members were pleasantly surprised to know that the proposed Public Hearing has been cancelled. Even more important was the fact that the Chief Minister of the State has called for a meeting with all the concerned organizations who have been raising the issue with respect to the Dam to be held on 20-8-2008.
The happenings in the far eastern State of Arunachal has important lessons for the rest of the Country. The community is convinced that there is no use of Public Consultation unless it is based on adequate and proper information about the dam and its impact and the fact that people should be able to participate effectively in the Public Hearing. Easy access to the place where the Public Hearing is conducted is as important as access to information. In the absence of these pre conditions, the Public Hearing process becomes a mere formality and procedure to be accomplished in the EIA process. For the Idu Mishmi Community, it is their first step in securing their access rights.
Ritwick Dutta Ritwick (ritwickdutta@gmail.com) is the leader of the TAI Himalayan Coalition and the founder of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) and is based in New Delhi