Attached, is a database of improvements in over 30 TAI Partner Countries. This database highlights changes in national laws towards access improvements from 2005 to 2010. The database highlights areas of change based on Access Pillars: Access to Information (A2I), Access to Justice (A2J), Public Participation(PP) and Capacity Building. Within the database, one can click on the link country tab to find the laws changes within each country.
Published: 2010
Attached, is a matrix of stories that have been written by TAI partners from October 2008 to July 2010 on access changes within their respective countries. The chart highlights the areas of change based on Access Pillars:Access to Information (A2I), Access to Justice (A2J), Public Participation (PP) and Capacity Building.
Within the chart, one can click on the link provided. This goes directly to a story or short blog post on this website explaining. The post provides first hand information from TAI partners working within that pillar of access.
Published: 2009
El Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental inició la construcción de una propuesta de objetivos y acciones estratégicas que permitan mejorar los procesos de gestión de la IA y su acceso.
Esta construcción se basó en el levantamiento de información sobre los principales problemas y debilidades en cuanto a la gestión de la IA, a través de un proceso que incluyó la investigación sobre los sistemas o redes de información existentes, la situación institucional y normativa para la gestión y acceso a la información ambiental y la realización de encuestas cuali-cuantitativas a generadores, gestores y usuarios de la IA para conocer su percepción sobre los principales problemas que se generan en toda la cadena de producción y socialización de información ambiental.
A partir de esta investigación, se identificaron problemas recurrentes en la gestión y socialización de la IA, así como fortalezas y oportunidades que manejan las distintas instituciones públicas y privadas. Esta información ha permitido plantear lineamientos estratégicos para mejorar la gestión y el acceso de la IA, que serán entregados a la autoridad ambiental a fin de apoyar las políticas y acciones para una mayor y mejor generación y socialización de la información en el Ecuador, promovidas por la Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo (SENPLADES) y, en el caso de la Información Ambiental, por el Ministerio del Ambiente.
Published: 2009
Este documento recoge los criterios, análisis y discusiones generados en el Foro “Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública en el Ecuador. Retos y Análisis cinco años después de promulgada la LOTAIP”, y busca ser un medio para difundir y promover el debate sobre los retos existentes en el Ecuador en cuanto al acceso a la información.
Published: 2009
En el actual contexto normativo e institucional, la participación de la ciudadanía es uno de los ejes fundamentales de la gestión pública en todos sus ámbitos. La nueva Constitución de Montecristi consagra a la participación ciudadana como un derecho y un principio de organización e innovación institucional del Estado para garantizar los derechos de las personas. No podemos olvidar que el desarrollo requiere del aporte y la inclusión de todos los sectores sociales, no sólo como una forma de ser parte activa de su propio desarrollo, sino también como un espacio de corresponsabilidad para con lo público. Es así que la participación ciudadana cumple un rol articulador en los procesos de desarrollo, siempre y cuando ésta sea vista como una necesidad de articular visiones, propuestas, criterios, acciones y compromisos, y no como una mera formalidad para “avalar” procesos.
En la gestión ambiental, la participación ciudadana fundamenta los espacios de interacción de las comunidades, de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil y otros actores interesados, con el gobierno –nacional y local- en los procesos de toma de decisiones en relación al ambiente. Sin embargo, para que esta participación de la ciudadanía sea eficiente, efectiva y oportuna tiene que ser informada.
En este contexto, la edición del mes de agosto de nuestra serie de policy briefs “Temas de análisis”, analiza la importancia del acceso a la información como un insumo indispensable para la participación ciudadana en la gestión ambiental.
By David Heller (Posted: March 27, 2009)
The U.S. Congress is set to introduce legislation designed to reinvigorate participatory democracy by implementing a small-donor approach to congressional campaign finance, challenging the status quo where elections are largely fueled by corporate- and lobby- based contributions. The Access Initiative (TAI) has long noted the value of keeping regular citizens at the heart of the democratic process. This legislative effort is commendable for its commitment to promoting an array of democratic principles.
But because of its radical departure from the engrained Beltway precedents of big money and special interest politics, the bill’s passage is far from guaranteed.
Called ‘The Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act,’ the bill would establish a voluntary system of ‘Fair Elections’ funding for qualified congressional candidates who decline corporate funding and raise only small donations from their constituents.
The scheme that the bill proposes is ambitious but not impractical. First, candidates seeking to participate would have to collect a certain number of $5-$100 contributions from their constituents. After raising a given amount of money – signifying their viability as a candidate – they would be provided with a publicly-funded “Start-Up Grant” to launch a primary campaign, as well as matching funds of $4 for every $1 raised through constituents.
Candidates who receive their party’s nomination in the primary election are then eligible to receive a competitive public grant for use in the general election.
Because the system is voluntary, additional provisions ensure that the candidate opting into it will be competitive with candidates who do not, and choose to remain reliant on larger, more traditional sources of donations.
First, the system is structured so that candidates will receive funding support consistent with the amount raised by elected politicians in previous campaigns. So, participating candidates will not be disadvantaged by a lack of funds. Also, candidates are eligible to receive discounted fares for costs incurred by campaign communications, like T.V. and radio advertisements.
But despite earning bipartisan sponsorship in both houses of the Congress and strong support from a broad base of issue-specific communities including environmental, faith, and labor groups, there has been pessimism expressed about the bill’s passage.
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said that the proposal would be “hard politically.”
Representatives are notorious for engaging in behind-the-scenes efforts to oppose ethics and campaign finance overhauls in initial stages, but then overwhelmingly supporting them if and when a public vote occurs.
Ultimately, the political costs associated with severing ties to resourceful lobbyists should not blind politicians from recognizing the principled benefits that the bill’s passage will incur.
Fundamentally, it will strengthen the frayed link between representatives and their constituents– the people whose interests representatives are intended to reflect in legislative action. If electoral funding does not come from particular interest groups, but the general public, then representatives will be more likely to support policies that are in the public interest, as opposed to the interest of a particular industry.
This will improve policy decisions generally, because politicians would have an incentive to base them on the objective merits of particular cases – and how they may affect their constituency’s wellbeing – as opposed to the reaction of more parochial funding organizations.
Other byproducts of this democratic commitment include the bill’s encouragement of getting the public – both potential candidates and regular citizens – involved in politics. Candidates will no longer remain beholden to the wealthiest interest groups. Instead, a successful campaign can be run on the broad based support of individual people. This could lead to a more diverse and competitive representative body, comprised of intelligent and hard-working people who lack influential ties to particular industries.
Likewise, the bill will create an environment in which networks of grassroots organizations – manned by individual citizens – will be empowered to lead candidates through election cycles.
Examples of the effectiveness of small donor-based campaign financing abound. While the bill will not initially apply to presidential elections, the unprecedented campaign of Barack Obama demonstrates the ability of grassroots networks to win elections and increase overall political involvement, as people showed up to the polls and contributed money during this election in record numbers.
Likewise, five U.S. states have already implemented similar small donor programs for their state-level elections, and they’ve been widely viewed as successful.
Should the U.S. Congress pass the bill, not only would it advance the state of democracy in the U.S., but it would send a broader message to the rest of the world about the importance – and political feasibility – of abiding by democratic principles.
Published: 2006
An Assessment of Access to Information, Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Selected European Countries; The Access Initiative European Regional Report
This report was conducted using the assessment method developed by The Access Initiative, a global network of civil society organizations. Unless otherwise noted, the opinions, interpretations and findings presented in this document are the responsibility of the authors and not of The Access Initiative. For additional information about The Access Initiative, including its members and leadership, please see www.accessinitiative.org.
Supported by The European Commission, Directorate General Justice, Freedom and Security Sole responsibility for this publication lies with the authors, and the Commission of the European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Published: 2005
To Environmental Information Participation and Justice in Latin America, 2004 – 2005
Over the course of 18 months, coalitions of civil society organizations from 10 different countries carried out local studies with a common methodology in order to evaluate the current state of access to information, participation,justice, and capacity building.
This is a memorandum authored by Professor John E. Bonine. The best practices regarding access to justice include removal or modification of two major barriers: (1) restrictions on “standing to sue” and (2) the high costs of going to court. The first of these is a legal barrier. It determines which persons or organizations are allowed to file lawsuits in the courts against public authorities (governmental bodies). The second barrier can be either a legal barrier or a practical one. Lawyers and lawsuits can be expensive. Citizens and their organizations usually lack the resources to bring such cases to court.
Barriers to access to justice can be imposed by either national legislation (or in just one country by a national constitution) or court interpretations and practices. They can be overcome by national constitutions, legislation, and court interpretations.
Standing to sue
In countries with the most restrictive policies on “standing to sue,” a person cannot file a lawsuit unless he or she can demonstrate that a “legal interest” or “legal right” will be affected by the action of a public authority. This is sometimes phrased as requiring that a person show a “direct and individual concern,” that he or she is part of the public that is legally “concerned,” or even that he or she must be able to prove an “injury” that is satisfactory to the courts. All of these formulations of standing requirements impose definite barriers to access to justice.
In many countries, which have better practices, the “standing to sue” requirement has been softened by requiring only that a “sufficient interest” be shown. A similar softening occurs in countries that allow any person to start a court case to defend a “diffuse interest” or the “public interest.” These types of progress have taken place in countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. In several countries, particularly in Europe and nearby regions, registered nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with a concern for protection of the environment are granted standing to sue without need to show either a legal or “sufficient” interest.
The best practice, however, is to abolish entirely the requirement for “standing to sue.” In such countries or jurisdictions, the courts do not look at who is bringing a lawsuit, but only at whether a public authority has violated its constitutional or statutory duties. This “open standing” (or actio popularis) can be granted by legislation or a national constitution. It can be granted explicitly or through judicial interpretation in court decisions. Such open standing has been recognized in parts of Asia, the Americas, and Europe.
Economic barriers
The most obvious economic or financial barriers to access to justice involve the high cost of lawyers and the high costs imposed by courts as a condition of filing lawsuits. These costs obviously consist of paying a person’s own lawyer. But in some countries a party who loses a lawsuit must also pay the costs of the opponent’s lawyers and experts, which can dramatically increase costs and raise barriers even higher.
With regard to a person or NGO having to pay lawyers to bring a case, the best practice is for government programs to provide steady funding for individuals or NGOs that are dedicated to the protection of the environment. Funding from private charitable foundations is crucial as bridge funding, until such time as governments recognize the value of public interest litigation and their obligation to support it. Relying on the voluntary efforts of private lawyers is necessary in many countries at the present time, but it is sporadic and uncertain. This results in unequal justice because business interests have the resources to pay for their own lawyers and the pressure of threatened lawsuits coming from only one side can lead government officials to lean in their direction.
With regard to being ordered by a court to pay the costs of the lawyers and experts on the other side of a case, when the individual or NGO brings a case but is not successful, countries that have such a “loser-pays’ policy have erected a particularly high barrier to justice. The best practice is to eliminate such a policy entirely. This can occur through either legislation or court decisions rejecting this policy. Such court decisions can be based on constitutional, human rights, or pragmatic grounds. A good practice is at least to create an exception for public interest cases, or for all cases in which a public authority is on the other side of the case.
In the process of abolishing the loser-pays requirement as it is applied against individuals and NGOs, some countries provide for courts to award costs to individuals and NGOs when they win. Such “one-way attorney costs” is a best practice, giving citizen enforcers of environmental law the best of both worlds.