Topics: Public Participation

By Elizabeth Moses (Posted: January 31, 2013)

Beijing’s hazardous air quality made the news around the world as the density of PM2.5 particulates surpassed 700 micrograms per cubic meter in many parts of the city on Saturday, January 12th for the first time in memory.

Based on measurements taken from an air-quality monitoring device located on top of the United States Embassy, the Washington Post reported the highest level reached 755, which correspond to a PM2.5 density of 886 micrograms per cubic meter. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality index goes up to only 500, and the agency advises that anything greater than 300 would trigger a health warning of “emergency conditions.” The World Health Organization considers a safe daily level to be 25 micrograms per cubic meter.

But these dangerous levels and the potential health impacts are only part of the story. The lack of information about air pollution and citizen’s demand for better transparency has also made the news. The New York Times reported that in response to this crisis, Chinese citizens are demanding municipal government release more air quality data. The Washington Post reported this public outcry may have helped put pressure on the state run media – which usually avoids criticizing the government on such topics – to run reports and editorials acknowledging the problem and demanding solutions.

These issues are at the heart of WRI’s “Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment” (STRIPE) project. The STRIPE Project seeks to create new, effective opportunities for freedom of information law implementation and improvement in access to information about air and water and pollution control regulation in Thailand and Indonesia in heavily polluted communities. More information about the STRIPE project can be found athttp://prezi.com/18icfmq7nxdj/stripe/.

As part of this project WRI brought government and civil society partners from both countries to Washington DC to learn about the latest programs and means to facilitate access to environmental information by citizens. This study tour was an opportunity to build the capacity of partners and consensus on how to move the access to environmental information agenda forward. For more information, see the attached Study Tour outcome document.

As part of our effort to deepen and broaden this work, WRI is hosting a regional meeting in Jakarta, Indonesia, April 29 – May, 2013. Participants will include STRIPE partners, experts from China, Philippines and Mongolia, international governmental agencies, government officials, and freedom of information professionals. We will use this opportunity to reflect on:

1. The findings of the STRIPE project and draft action plans developed by ICEL to improve access to environmental information in Indonesia to enhance regional understanding of the current status of right of access to environmental information and issues faced by communities and activists.

2. Possibilities for peer learning about access to environmental information in order to assess the validity of utilizing freedom of information laws to promote proactive release of environmental information (theory for change).

3. How to share experiences and learning both by government national agencies, donor agencies, freedom of information activists and communities and assess opportunities to expand STRIPE to the invited countries for wider regional impact.

It shouldn’t take life threatening air quality to highlight the importance of better environmental protection and demand for better access to environmental information. But it does illustrate the urgency of the work we are undertaking and the need for strong access to information regimes around the globe.

By Paula Fuentes (Posted: January 15, 2013)

El día 11 de Enero del 2013 en el marco del Encuentro Regional del Open Government Partnership realizado los días 10 y 11 de Enero en la sede de la CEPAL en la ciudad de Santiago de Chile, Andrea Sanhueza se reunión con varias Organizaciones y redes de la sociedad Civil de LAC para darles a conocer el proceso que 11 países han iniciado al firmar la Declaración para la Implementación del P10 De La Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo. Estos 11 países son Brasil, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, Jamaica, México, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, República Dominicana y Uruguay. Aprovechando la participación de diversas ONG’s en este Encuentro Regional del OGP, la representante de la Iniciativa de Acceso se reunió con Karina Banfi, Secretaria Ejecutiva de la Alianza por la Libre Expresión e Información, Zoe Reiter Gerente Regional de Programas Departamento de las Américas de Transparencia Internacional, Anabel Cruz de la Red Regional sobre Rendición de Cuentas y Emilene Martínez Coordinadora de la Sociedad Civil para América Latina del OGP. Estas representantes de redes se comprometieron a difundir información sobre el proceso de ALAC para un instrumento regional del P10 entre sus asociados y promover que los interesados/das tomen contacto con la Iniciativa de Acceso. Además Acción Ciudadana de Guatemala, a través de su Director Ejecutivo Sr. Manfredo Marroquín aceptó ser la organización de contacto de la Iniciativa de Acceso para este proceso regional.

By Peter Veit and Gilbert Sendugwa (Posted: December 18, 2012)

This article was written by Peter Veit and Gilbert Sendugwa and orginally posted on WRI Insights

Open government requires an open executive branch, an open legislature, and an open judiciary. Historically, however, global attention to government transparency and access to information has focused on the executive branch.

But this may finally be changing. In April of this year, 38 civil society organizations from around the world convened in Washington, D.C. and agreed to work together to advance open parliaments. In September, more than 90 civil society organizations from more than 60 countries launched the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness in Rome.

Civil society attention on lawmakers and legislatures is critically important—especially in Africa, where parliaments have long worked behind closed doors (most legislatures on the continent are parliaments). Transparency is needed for civil society to hold legislators accountable for their decisions and actions, and to ensure they are responsive to the needs and concerns of their constituents.

A History of Closed Government

In 2008, the World Resources Institute published On Whose Behalf: Legislative Representation and the Environment in Africa. The report identified a deep disconnect between African lawmakers and their electors. For various reasons, most citizens have a limited, often erroneous understanding of the formal lawmaking, executive oversight, and representation responsibilities of legislators. Rural people in particular view lawmakers principally as development agents and press them to bring projects to their districts. In response, many legislators work to find resources to build schools, dispensaries, wells, roads, and other infrastructure and assist their constituents with personal matters. As a result, however, elections are often referendums on how many projects lawmakers brought to their communities—not on which laws they supported or how effectively they shadowed line ministries to ensure effective performance.

Indeed, while many citizens are aware of the development efforts of their legislators, most do not know if they voted on bills or took other actions in parliament that are consistent with their campaign pledges, political party positions, or the priority needs of constituents. Few monitor the performance of their lawmakers in parliament and hold them accountable for their constitutional roles. When voters pay little attention to how legislators act in parliament, lawmakers can be influenced by government leaders, political party officials, and other powerful actors whose interests may diverge from those of their electors.

Citizens interested in monitoring legislator actions face difficulties because of the dearth of information in the public domain. In many African countries, parliamentary sessions are not broadcast live on television, radio, or over the internet; committee meetings are closed to the public; parliamentary inquiry reports are not public documents; and Hansards—the official reports of parliamentary debates—are not available in a timely manner or translated into local dialects. Of particular note, individual votes by African lawmakers on bills and motions are not commonly recorded and made available to the public.

Some civil society organizations, such as the Parliamentary Monitoring Group in South Africa, are making efforts to monitor the performance of legislators, select committees, and the full house. Given the lack of public information, however, their efforts must often rely on reviewing (frequently dated) Hansards and interviewing lawmakers and electors. These efforts are costly and time-consuming, and the data collected does not always provide a useful or accurate assessment of overall performance. In Kenya, Mzalendo examined attendance in parliamentary sessions, partly because such records are among the few available to the public. When their findings showed that many lawmakers rarely attended sessions, the resulting public outcry led to an immediate improvement in performance—a testament to the importance of parliamentary monitoring and accountability.

Ways to Open Up African Legislatures

For lawmakers to be accountable to their constituents, voters need information to evaluate legislator performance. In most democratic systems, legislatures are transparent in their proceedings. In the United States, United Kingdom, and other nations, lawmaker votes are routinely recorded and released to the public. Civil society organizations examine these voting records and other information to measure legislator performance. For example, the League of Conservation Voters examines voting records on critical environmental bills at several government levels to identify “green” and “dirty” lawmakers. Voters who prioritize environmental matters consider this information as they go to the polls. Also in the United States, the Participatory Politics Foundation established and manages OpenCongress—a free, open-source, not-for-profit, non-partisan public resource website.

Donor agencies, including some private foundations, are investing in efforts designed to strengthen legislatures in Africa. Few of these projects, however, focus exclusively on promoting transparency. More efforts are needed to open legislatures. These efforts include projects that support lawmakers in establishing rules of procedure that promote public participation and transparency, as well as projects that support civil society to press parliaments to become more open in their dealings.

Global transparency norms can also help African legislatures become more open. Efforts could focus on a single issue—such as a campaign to have all legislatures systematically record and release individual member votes on bills—or they could address a broader set of transparency measures. Both strategies are used in other contexts. The Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative is focused narrowly on the disclosure of company payments and government revenues from petroleum and minerals. In contrast, Open Contracting is a global campaign to increase disclosure and participation in public contracting, from the pre-award activity stage through contract award to implementation and maintenance.

Until legislatures become more transparent, citizens will be challenged to hold their lawmakers accountable. The time to open Africa’s legislatures is now. Only then will legislatures—the most direct line that government has to the people—become a truly effective branch of government.