The Access Initiative

Menu

Topics: Public Participation

More Transparent Than Glass

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.

Canadians Debating to Lower Environmental Safeguards

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.

UNEP Governing Council to Decide Future of Access Principles in Nairobi

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.

Video: Changing Channels: Ukraine’s Chance to Save the Danube Delta

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.

Jackson Ushers in New Era of Transparency for U.S. EPA

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.

Change in the Environmental Law -TAI Macedonia

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.

Has Public Participation Been Terminated?

By David Heller (Posted: January 9, 2009) 

In an effort to keep his state fiscally afloat amidst turbulent economic times and an imminent budget crisis, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is jeopardizing longstanding policies designed to both protect the state’s environment and facilitate public participation in government.

His first priority is to temporarily revoke the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under this Act, developers are required to submit documentation of their projects’ potential environmental impact to the government for public review. The Governor is requesting that this process be skipped to accelerate the construction of a dozen highways throughout the state, which he argues will bring money and jobs to struggling citizens.

State Democrats have acquiesced to this first request, conceding that immediate economic needs supersede those of conducting extensive environmental reviews on already somewhat vetted transportation projects.

But Schwarzenegger has not stopped there. The Governor is also seeking to acquire federal money that will be exempt from similar national environmental regulations. As reported in Greenwire,

“This week, Schwarzenegger sent the president-elect a letter urging him to consider funding $44 billion in transportation, energy and water projects when Congress takes up an economic stimulus package. He also requested action to ‘waive or greatly streamline National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements consistent with [California’s] statutory proposals to modify the California Environment Quality Act for transportation projects.’ ”

Lastly, Schwarzenegger has sought to indefinitely establish a three-member “super Cabinet,” comprised of his own Cabinet members. They would hold the power to approve and initiate any development project normally submitted for review, thereby bypassing standard environmental impact analysis.

Unlike the first request, the second two systemically threaten the ideals of environmental protection, public access to information, and public participation in government.

One could argue that relaxing CEQA and using money for specific projects despite their environmental impact is a necessary evil given these economic times. But ultimately, it must not set a precedent for pervasive regulatory exemption. Schwarzenegger’s second request – granting California billions of federal dollars for a slew of projects that have yet to be created or fully planned – opens the door for rampant environmental abuse and ought to be avoided at all costs.

The new presidential administration should not approve California’s request to bypass NEPA regulations on forthcoming stimulus money. While conducting reviews might slow down the process of pumping money back into the state’s economy, the environmental damage caused by poorly planned development will outlast this current recession.

Likewise, the creation of a “super-Cabinet” is a potentially catastrophic development for environmentalists, and luckily has been met with overt hostility by Californian policymakers. As Greenwire reported,

“Alicia Trost, spokeswoman for state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D), said the super Cabinet and a provision that would grant contractors “immunity” from the judicial process are nonstarters with Democrats in the state capital. ‘We’re not quite sure what that has to do with us running out of money in three weeks,’ Trost said.”

These new plans are a step back for Schwarzenegger, and a clear product of political calculation rather than prudent foresight. The Governor’s recent decision to raise taxes and generate income has angered many of his business-owning constituents, who, already facing hard times, are being unabashedly appeased by efforts to pervasively waive important environmental review and promote unfettered development.

This immediate need for political support and fiscal growth must not blind Schwarzenegger to the timeless importance and value of opening up development projects to review, where the public can learn of proposed action and petition their representatives for changes that they believe ought to be implemented. In the long term, a knowledgeable, engaged public, as well as a preserved environment, are much more valuable than the speedy implementation of development policies. Moreover, while the economy will rebound, a disengaged and apathetic public or a devastated environment will be much more stubborn to change. California must proceed with these facts in mind and resist their Governor’s strong-arm approach to political maneuvering.

El Quinto Poder / The Fifth Power

By Daniel Barragan (Posted: January 8, 2009)

Durante las últimas décadas el sistema político ecuatoriano, y especialmente el sistema de partidos políticos, sufrieron un importante desgaste que originó el nacimiento de movimiento ciudadanos mucho más fuertes, que se movilizaron para proponer y exigir cambios profundos en el país. Así surgió el movimiento político del actual gobierno, que como parte de su proyecto político impulsó una Asamblea Constituyente enfocada a elaborar una nueva Constitución que reforme la institucionalidad del Estado y reoriente la política de desarrollo hacia la equidad social.

Este proceso de la Asamblea Constituyente transcurrió en medio de muchas expectativas ciudadanas, y finalmente el 28 de septiembre pasado la nueva Constitución fue aprobada mediante referéndum. La Constitución vigente incorpora un nuevo sistema político basado en una democracia participativa. Es así que prevé la conformación de un quinto poder del Estado o Función de Transparencia y Control Social, radicado en el Consejo de Participación Ciudadana y Control Social, “…cuyo objetivo es incorporar a la ciudadanía a participar de manera protagónica en la toma de decisiones, planificación y gestión de los asuntos públicos, y en el control popular de las instituciones del Estado y la sociedad, y de sus representantes, en un proceso permanente de construcción del poder ciudadano.”

La nueva Constitución prevé en el Régimen de Transición, la conformación de un Consejo transitorio que debe conformarse hasta el 12 de enero de 2009. Luego de aprobado el Instructivo para la designación de los representantes al Consejo se inició un proceso de méritos y oposición para la selección de sus 14 miembros (siete principales y siete suplentes).

El Consejo de Participación Ciudadana transitorio se encargará únicamente de desarrollar el cuerpo legal que lo regule y durante este período no nombrará a las autoridades que establece la Constitución (de ese proceso estará a cargo el Consejo de Participación definitivo, que será integrado una vez que se expida la Ley).

La conformación de este nuevo poder del Estado debe ser lo más transparente y participativa, no sólo para garantizar una real representación de la ciudadanía en la formulación de políticas públicas, sino también por la gran responsabilidad que implica la designación de las autoridades de control, como son: Contralor, Procurador, Fiscal General, Defensor del Pueblo y Superintendentes (Comunicaciones, Compañías, Bancos y Seguros); y los miembros de la Función de Transparencia y Control Social, Consejo Nacional Electoral, Tribunal Contencioso Electoral y Consejo de la Judicatura.

The Fifth Power

During the recent decades the political system in Ecuador, and especially the political party system, suffered a major wear that generated a stronger citizen movement, which mobilized to propose and demand deep changes in the country. In this context arose the political movement of the current government and as part of its political project promoted a Constituent Assembly aimed to develop a new constitution to reform the State and reorient the development policy toward social equity.

The process of the Constituent Assembly passed amid high citizen’s expectations, and finally, on September 28 the new constitution was approved by referendum.

The Constitution includes a new political system based on participatory democracy and foresee the conformation of the Fifth Power of the State, or Transparency and Social Control Role, based in the Citizen Participation and Social Control Council, “… whose purpose is to incorporate the public to participate in a leading role in decision making, planning and governance, and the “popular control” of State’s institutions and society and their representatives, in a permanent process of citizen power construction.”

The new Constitution includes in the transitional regime, the formation of a transitional Council must conform up to January 12, 2009. After adopted the Instructive for the appointment of the representatives to the Council, began a process of merit and competition for the selection of its 14 members (seven major and seven alternates).

The transitional Citizen Participation Council will only develop the legal body to regulate itself and during this period they won’t designate the authorities established by the Constitution (this process will be in charge of the final Participation Council, which will be integrated once they issuing the Law).

The conformation of this new power of the State should be as transparent and participatory, not only to ensure a genuine citizens representation in public policy formulation, but also for the great responsibility that involves the appointment of control authorities, such as: Controller, State’s Attorney, Prosecuting Attorney, the Ombudsman and Superintendents (Communications, Companies, Banking and Insurance) and members of the Transparency and Social Control Role, the National Electoral Council, Contentious Electoral Tribunal and the Judiciary Council.

The Calabash Project

Published: 2005
Tools for Effective Participation in the EIA Process

 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has existed for 30 years. During its evolution, public involvement in the EIA process has become a key criterion that distinguishes EIA as a participatory decision support tool. Consequently, EIA is a suitable and appropriate platform from which to build participatory decision making approaches for the southern African region. Environmental Impact Assessment is one window through which the public has the opportunity to engage a government in decision-making.

However, in southern Africa, there is insufficient public access to information and there are inadequate or weak mechanisms for public participation in decision-making. The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA), through support provided by the World Bank TFESSD (Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development) and Canadian CIDA, undertook 2-year project to develop a process to enhance participation in decision-making in the SADC region Africa. Calabash was not designed to actually do public participation, but rather was structured so that regulators, private sector, practitioners and civil society had the capacity, knowledge and tools to better undertake respective public participation programs on individual projects and programmes.

Governance in its simplest forms describes the relationship among institutions, processes and ideas. It is about the exercise of power, accountability and relationships in pursuit of an organization’s mission or a nation’s goals. In Africa, achievement of a country’s goals are severely challenged due to such issues as resource degradation, HIV/AIDS, water scarcity and conflict. EIA of projects and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of policies plans and programmes, are evolving rapidly to address wider sustainability objectives beyond biophysical concerns. The evolution of these planning tools is recognizing that the public has a significant role to play in the EIA or SEA process to assist a government to achieve its objectives, while at the same time advancing democratic reform and good governance practices. How a respective government engages civil society with respect to decision-making is one measure of how a government is reforming its governance and democratic reform processes. The recent Commission for Africa report concluded that governance is one of the key issues to be addressed by Africa if poverty reduction is to occur.

Many African countries have well written EIA statutes that require the involvement of the public or civil society in the project decisions that affect them. To date, the application and success of public involvement in EA has been most variable due to lack of capacity, information, knowledge and networks in many stakeholder groups. Regardless, EIA presents a very effective and practical tool for African governments to show to the international investment community and the African democratic review teams that democratic principles at the project/programme level are being applied. EIA is one big “window” through which democratic reform can be realized by more participation.

Furthermore, while democracy has been widely embraced by many African governments, regional bodies and international gatherings, it is difficult to assess the extent to which democratic practices have genuinely taken root One fact is clear – a county’s citizens rather than outsiders are best placed to undertake a comprehensive and critical identification of the challenges confronting their country on the path of democracy development and consolidation. And their participation in decision-making is key to democratic reform. Citizens, informed and active EIA can act as advocates for its use in decision-making processes affecting their lives to their political leaders who will then require it of regulatory bodies. Sustainable development can hardly be achieved without stakeholder involvement in the EIA process. EIA with public consultation is an essential part of the process and system needed to make sustainable development happen.

The Calabash project is one step of many to assist the SADC region to move forward on democratic reform by using EIA as a catalyst for participatory decision-making by providing appropriate tools, knowledge and networks to regulators, civil society, practitioners and industry of the SADC region.

New WRI Publication – Good Governance in the U.S. Executive Branch

By Remi Moncel (Posted: October 18, 2008) 

How will the United States’ President-elect run his administration? The answer to this question will have direct impacts on the American people’s health, safety and the quality of their environment.

The 44th President of the United States will enter office faced with an unprecedented set of complex and urgent challenges, including a fragile financial system, spiraling energy and food prices and renewed demands for leadership to combat global warming. The President will need to respond by leading an administration driven by principles of good governance: transparency, inclusiveness and accountability.

In advance of the election, voters should ask where the candidates stand on such issues as checks and balances, signing statements and scientific integrity. After the election, the transition team of the winning party should ensure that these principles of government openness drive the selection of federal agency heads and the new President’s governing style.

A new WRI policy note reveals the link between an unchecked presidency and poor policy. It reviews the practices of previous administrations in the context of relevant constitutional and legislative provisions, and attests to the vulnerability of a system of delicate checks and balances to abuse of power. In addition to the legal abuses they constitute, these cases bring to light significant negative impacts that have resulted from an opaque presidency and make the case for better governance in the next administration.

The cases examined include:

  • Abuse of signing statements. President have issued these pronouncements upon signing bills into a law to brush off important environmental, safety and civil rights provisions mandated by Congress. In 2005 for example, President Bush dismissed important whistleblower protections which Congress had included in the Energy Policy Act. The provisions granted protections to federal employees who would report safety violations in nuclear waste management.

  • National policies designed behind closed doors. Devising the country’s energy policy or health care reform in the open serves several purposes. It enables confrontation of the nation’s top experts and visions with a view to enacting the most effective policies. It guarantees the public’s right to take part in the decision and voice their priorities. Finally, transparent decision-making increases public acceptance of policies and ensures that it meets the interests of the majority over those of an influential, well-connected few. President Clinton’s Task Force on National Health Care Reform, for example, conducted its discussions and activities behind closed doors without releasing the names of the participants. Pharmaceutical companies and justice groups decried the lack of openness surrounding the President’s task force. Ultimately, the lack of political viability and public trust of the initiative caused its demise and the failure the reform the United Sates’ health care system.

  • Distortion of scientific findings. In February 2007 a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists documented “widespread political interference in federal climate science.” Almost half of the 1,600 climate scientists working in government agencies who were surveyed indicated having perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or other terms from a variety of communications. Effective environmental and health regulations and standards rely on the research and recommendations of scientific experts. Yet, in March 2008, President Bush illegally intervened in the establishment of standards for smog-forming ozone. By law, this decision rested in the hands of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and its scientists. The President nonetheless overruled their decision and, in doing so, backed more lenient requirements for a gas proven to have negative effects on human health and wildlife.

Our research puts forward a set of practical recommendations for the President-elect:

  • Government-held information should be made available to the public unless limited and clearly articulated exceptions apply. Task forces and ad-hoc committees, not otherwise governed by formal rules, should conduct their work in a transparent and inclusive manner by making publicly available the content of their deliberations as well as the names and affiliations of the participants.

  • The President should not issue signing statements to disregard or decline to enforce a law or to interpret it in a manner inconsistent with the will of Congress. In addition, executive branch officials and agencies should cooperate with Congress in its oversight duties, limit the exercise of discretionary power and abstain from asserting executive privilege to shield the administration from legitimate congressional oversight and requests for disclosure of information. Congress on the other hand should reaffirm its oversight responsibility and take necessary measures to exercise its duty even when faced with a reluctant executive branch.

  • The President should guarantee the non-partisan enforcement of the law and the scientific integrity of federal agencies by appointing administrators that will respect the advice of technical and scientific experts, pursue the non-partisan prosecution of the law and interpret legal provisions in a non-partisan and even-handed manner. The President should protect the right of scientists and researchers to publicly review and comment on documents that use their research or work. Finally, the political review and communication of findings should not undermine the integrity and independence of scientific data and analysis.

Despite the principle of checks and balances enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, Presidents retain a great deal of discretion in the exercise of power. In fact, the executive branch has been reluctant to relinquish the authority and discretion it gradually took over from the other branches of government. Neither major candidate made his views clear on all of these issues in the 2008 presidential election. On Constitution Day, over 35 public interest groups across party lines called upon the candidates to clarify their views on the constitutional issues delineated in this paper.

Voters, supported by the media, may still ask Senators Obama and McCain how they would run their administration as President. After the election, it will be the President-elect’s responsibility to ensure that these principles of good governance are implemented across federal agencies and inform his new leadership.

Original story here