The Access Initiative

Menu

Topics: Environmental Impact Assessment

President Trump’s First Week: Is Environmental Democracy in Jeopardy?

During the new president’s first week in office, the Trump administration took actions that could threaten inclusive decision-making on environmental issues—what we refer to as “environmental democracy”—in the United States:

  • On Monday, the administration instituted a “media blackout” at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), prohibiting staffers from publishing news releases, blogs, social media posts and new web content.
  • Similar actions were taken at other agencies, including curtailing of communications at the Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Health and Human Services and with the National Parks Service.
  • On the same day, the president stated that he plans to “cut regulations by 75 percent, maybe more” to make it faster for businesses to move projects forward.
  • On Tuesday, he issued an executive order to revive the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, without consulting with the State Department and bypassing further public consultations.
  • On Wednesday, after proposing and then rescinding a directive to remove EPA’s climate change webpage, a spokesperson for the EPA transition team announced that political appointees must review scientific findings on a “case-by-case basis” before releasing them to the public, including routine pollution monitoring data.
  • These actions could not only undermine the government’s ability to protect the environment and public health, but they also erode the foundations of good governance: transparency, public participation and accountability.

Transparency

Citizens can neither understand nor participate in environmental decision-making without having access to objective, scientific information and data. Sound and effective policymaking within government should be based on the best possible information and evidence. Further, the free flow of information is essential for allowing people to reveal wrongdoing and hold officials to account. As a public institution, the EPA is legally required to provide access to critical environmental information, such as air and water pollution monitoring reports, Environmental Impact Assessments, compliance and enforcement data and climate data. Doing so ensures that Americans “have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risk.”

Beyond communications, it is problematic to require that political appointees review the agency’s scientific data—including regarding climate change—before releasing it to the public. This will be the first time that an administration’s appointees will screen such studies.

This directive undermines the EPA’s established Scientific Integrity Policy, which “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

The administration’s actions also obstruct an integral component of democratic policymaking. To meaningfully engage in political processes, citizens must have access to accurate information that has not been editorialized or modified. Only with unbiased facts can they understand and shape key decisions that impact their local environments.

Public Participation and Accountability

Public participation is the bedrock of environmental democracy; yet the new administration’s plans may undercut this pillar of good governance. While meeting with business leaders during his first day in office, President Trump declared that the government must eliminate regulations and expedite permitting processes for large development projects. Effective, efficient rule-making should be a goal for policymakers, but it must not come at the cost of public participation.

Many of the EPA’s and other agencies’ procedures—such as air and water discharge permits, waste cleanup plans and Environmental Impact Assessments—require a public consultation process. Soliciting public participation allows policymakers to consider the needs of all stakeholders who may be affected by projects like oil and gas extraction and mining and road construction, and enables them to better identify unintended consequences. Long-term, policies developed with community input often get more public support and less resistance because citizens perceive these decisions as fair and legitimate.

The Dakota Access pipeline project showcases the importance of public participation. In July 2016, the Standing Rock Tribe filed a complaint against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that grants permits needed to construct the pipeline. They claimed that, by crossing under the Missouri River, the pipeline posed a serious threat to the community’s clean water and sacred burial grounds. Their complaint further alleged a breach of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act on the grounds of failure to consult with affected parties, adverse effects on water health and failure to assess scared sites.

In December, following weeks of public protests, the Corps decided it would delay the project in order to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement, which would explore alternative routes for the pipeline. This result shows the power and necessity of public participation—people’s involvement is critical for protecting communities and for finding the safest, most appropriate options for infrastructure projects.

But on his second day in office, Trump ordered the Corps to “review and approve [the pipeline] in an expedited manner,” without considering alternative routes or conducting a public consultation. His directive effectively thwarts the public participation process to resolve what has become the biggest joint protest of Native American Indian tribes in decades.

The Way Forward

The United States has long been recognized as a global leader in establishing rights to environmental information, to accurate and objective scientific resources, and to public participation in decision-making processes. It currently holds the third-highest ranking on WRI’s Environmental Democracy Index, which scores countries on their ability to provide these fundamental rights.

The EPA and other government agencies’ mandate to use science to inform policies, to conduct extensive public consultations, and communicate openly with people plays a foundational role in protecting people’s health and the environment. Pursuing and sharing scientific data and evidence is integral to this process. The Trump administration, its agencies and their staff have an obligation to protect and continue America’s strong leadership on environmental democracy.

Citizen Enforcements of Procedural Rights in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Belize and Jamaica         

Published: 2011

The inclusion of procedural rights of access to information, public participationand access to justice in environmental decision-making are recognized in international treaties and soft law agreements as central to the sustainable development agenda. Since the 1990s, a number of Caribbean countries have enacted environmental legislation requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to permitting significant developments . The extent to which procedural rights have been included within EIA provisions however is varied. There has been little analysis of the impact of the use by citizens of procedural rights in these EIA processes.

This paper examines the legislative framework for EIAs and citizen enforcement of procedural rights in the decision-making process for proposed developments in Jamaica and Belize. The legislative frameworks adopted by Belize and Jamaica are significantly different; with the former enacting comparatively comprehensive regulations to guide the EIA process and the latter dependent on internal guidelines. In both countries there has been documented failure in law and practice to deliver effective procedural rights. A review of recent court decisions in Belize and Jamaica illustrates the value of citizen enforcement as a means of safeguarding procedural rights in the conduct and review of EIAs as well as demonstrating the failure in compliance.

Indian Court Reminds Environment Tribunal About Its Duty to the Future Generation

By Ritwick Dutta (Posted: June 7, 2009) 

Two significant ruling by the Delhi High Court in the month of April and May, 2009 delivered by Justice Ravindra Bhat has greatly helped the cause of access to Justice in India. These two judgments along with the Judgment on the functioning of the NEAA delivered by Justice A. P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar has laid down a framework for access rights for far as challenging environmental clearances are concerned.

Background:

The National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA), a Statutory Authority to hear appeals filed against approval granted by the Government to various industrial and infrastructure projects based on Environment Impact Assessment, dismissed two appeals filed before it. The first concerned approval of the Vedanta Aluminium Smelter Plant in Jhasrsuguda, Orissa and the second, a mine approved in Goa. The first Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner, Prafull Samantray did not have the loucus standi to file the Appeal since he was not an “aggrieved person”. The second was dismissed on grounds of delay since the petitioner did not, according to the NEAA have “sufficient cause” in filing the appeal late. The Delhi high Court quashed both the orders of the National Environmental Appellate Authority. In respect of Vedanta it imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner. The Courts clarified on the issue as to who can file an Appeal before the NEAA and held as follows:

•“Public hearings……. are organized to elicit comments from the members of public before granting clearance to a project in order to assess the nature of environmental damage, if any, due to the likely execution of project and its impact on the rights of inhabitants and the persons who depend on that area for livelihood or otherwise. A person who participates in the public hearing, and thus in the process of decision-making, potentially becomes an aggrieved person if his grievances are not properly addressed.

•The world as we know is gravely imperiled by mankind’s collective folly. Unconcern to the environment has reached such damaging levels which threatens the very existence of life on this planet. If standing before a special tribunal, created to assess impact of projects and activities that impact, or pose potential threats to the environment, or local communities, is construed narrowly, organizations working for the betterment of the environment whether in form of NGOs or otherwise, would be effectively kept out of the discourse, that is so crucial an input in such proceedings. Such association of persons, as long as they work in the field of environment, possess a right to oppose and challenge all actions, whether of the State or private parties, that impair or potentially impair the environment.

•In cases where complaints, appeals etc. are filed bona fide by public spirited interested persons, environmental activists or other such voluntary organisations working for the betterment of the community as a whole, they are to be construed as “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of that expression under Section 11 (2) (c) of the Act (National Environment Appellate Authority Act)

•As a native American proverb goes, “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”; denial of access to meaningful channels to communities who can be affected by proposed projects would only leave them remediless, on the one hand, and allow unchallenged indiscriminate drawings from the future generations’ rights with impunity, thus gravely undermining the purpose of the Act.

•The kind of disputes that the Tribunal is expected to adjudicate upon is not really a lis between the litigating parties – it is necessarily a wider one whereby the impact of the State decisions to permit/promotion a kind of project, on the local community or the environment in general has to be considered. Viewed from this perspective, and the statement of objects of the enactment, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has to in each case (where appeals are preferred before it), adopt a broad and liberal, rather than narrow and cribbed approach. The latter view, however, has appealed to the Tribunal. After all when the local community or a person entitled to move an appeal approaches a Tribunal as has happened in this case, the grievance is not the impact on the immediate parties alone, but on the wider community at large. The Tribunal has to keep that in mind.

•In a case like the present where environmental clearances’ impact on local population in terms of their environmental harm, has to be assessed the approach of the tribunal especially set up for this purpose should be liberal and not “hyper technical”

The two decisions of the Delhi High Court are truely landmark. These two, along with the earlier Judgment of Justice A.P Shah and Justice Muralidhar on the functioning of the NEAA could form the guiding force for affected communities and groups who wish to challenge destructive projects approved on the basis of faulty EIA.