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 trabajo pretende acercar algunas reflexiones teórico-prácticas sobre la importancia del acceso a la información y la participación en los proyectos de desarrollo, entendiendo que fortaleciendo esas áreas el resultado final será un mejor proyecto que potencie las posibilidades de lograr un efectivo Desarrollo Sustentable.
En la sección introductoria se vinculará al acceso a la información pública y a la participación con los Derechos Humanos. Se analizará el efecto multiplicador que estos derechos pueden tener sobre el resto de los derechos fundamentales. Asimismo, se analizará cuáles son los beneficios más directos que puede tener la participación sobre los proyectos de desarrollo. Se presentarán brevemente las interrelaciones entre las normativas nacionales y las propias de las instituciones financieras internacionales, teniendo siempre en vistas el fortalecimiento de los sistemas de participación y de acceso a la información. Finalmente se hará una breve referencia al acceso a la justicia en sentido amplio, como parte integrante de estos sistemas.
Posteriormente, se hablará directamente sobre participación poniendo énfasis en algunos mecanismos específicos que pueden ser útiles en los procedimientos vinculados a proyectos de desarrollo. En la siguiente sección se analizará la participación y el acceso a la información en la iniciativa IIRSA a nivel general para luego poner el foco en dos proyectos concretos: el Gasoducto del Noreste (GNEA) y la represa hidroeléctrica de Garabí.
Finalmente y a modo de cierre, se presentarán algunas reflexiones que no pretenden elevarse en conclusiones sino en disparadores de discusiones que permitan fortalecer los procesos de desarrollo mejorando el acceso a la información pública vinculada a ellos y generando efectivos espacios de participación.
Published: 2008
This informational memo, by TAI partner, Dr. Csaba Kiss, outlines the benefits and theory behind legislative transparency. Additionally, it uses examples from existing practice in TAI countries. It is part of a larger series of informational memos on best practices and access rights.
The information memos are commissioned by the TAI Secretariat. They represent the ideas and thoughts of their respective authors and do not represent the official position of the Access Initiative or the TAI Secretariat. While the secretariat does its best to ensure the quality of these memos they are essentially the work of their respective authors who take full responsibility for their content. Please contact the TAI Secretariat if you have ideas for topics which are not covered in the current research.
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.
San José, Costa Rica. 2009
Last April 29th and 30th, representatives from TAI Coalitions from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica gathered in regional workshop to create a common Action Plan to strengthen their work on the implementation of Principle 10.
The Action Plan has three sections:
A) Challenges and commitments of the leader organizations in each coalition: This point is related with the strengthening of the following aspects: 1) National coalitions to promote the Access Rights. 2) Information channels within the coalitions and between the coalitions. 3) Fundraising for national coalitions projects. 4) the inclusion of the Dominican Republic and Panama in the regional process. 5) Establishing a regional partnership that consolidates common work strategies and get funding for regional projects. 6) Political context challenges in each country. B) Regional Agenda: This point refers to issues related with: 1) access to information and communications between governments and civil society, 2) Legal framework on access rights. 3) Proceedings and institutional structures of public participation. 4) Education and training on access rights. 5) Funding for public participation and access to information. C) Building a regional partnership: It contains the actions defined to create a regional partnership of TAI Coalitions in Central America.
As part of the program, the meeting had two spaces to tend other topics: Daniel Barragán, from TAI Ecuador, presented the hemispheric strategic plan of Latin America Access Coalitions. Aldo Palacios and Diego Cooper from PP10Secretariat presented the components and the work of the Partnership for Principle 10.
This workshop is an activity of the project “Partnership 10 Central America” which is funded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and executed by Foundation for Peace and Democracy(FUNPADEM).
Further information please contact Luis Diego Segura from Foundation for Peace and Democracy, FUNPADEM. Email sociedadcivil@funpadem.org or +506 2283 9435.
San José, Costa Rica. 2009
Last April 29th and 30th, representatives from TAI Coalitions from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica gathered in regional workshop to create a common Action Plan to strengthen their work on the implementation of Principle 10.
The Action Plan has three sections:
A) Challenges and commitments of the leader organizations in each coalition: This point is related with the strengthening of the following aspects: 1) National coalitions to promote the Access Rights. 2) Information channels within the coalitions and between the coalitions. 3) Fundraising for national coalitions projects. 4) the inclusion of the Dominican Republic and Panama in the regional process. 5) Establishing a regional partnership that consolidates common work strategies and get funding for regional projects. 6) Political context challenges in each country. B) Regional Agenda: This point refers to issues related with: 1) access to information and communications between governments and civil society, 2) Legal framework on access rights. 3) Proceedings and institutional structures of public participation. 4) Education and training on access rights. 5) Funding for public participation and access to information. C) Building a regional partnership: It contains the actions defined to create a regional partnership of TAI Coalitions in Central America.
As part of the program, the meeting had two spaces to tend other topics: Daniel Barragán, from TAI Ecuador, presented the hemispheric strategic plan of Latin America Access Coalitions. Aldo Palacios and Diego Cooper from PP10 Secretariat presented the components and the work of the Partnership for Principle 10.
This workshop is an activity of the project “Partnership 10 Central America” which is funded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and executed by Foundation for Peace and Democracy(FUNPADEM).
Further information please contact Luis Diego Segura from Foundation for Peace and Democracy, FUNPADEM. Email sociedadcivil@funpadem.org or +506 2283 9435.
San José, Costa Rica. 2009
Last April 29th and 30th, representatives from TAI Coalitions from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica gathered in regional workshop to create a common Action Plan to strengthen their work on the implementation of Principle 10.
The Action Plan has three sections:
A) Challenges and commitments of the leader organizations in each coalition: This point is related with the strengthening of the following aspects: 1) National coalitions to promote the Access Rights. 2) Information channels within the coalitions and between the coalitions. 3) Fundraising for national coalitions projects. 4) the inclusion of the Dominican Republic and Panama in the regional process. 5) Establishing a regional partnership that consolidates common work strategies and get funding for regional projects. 6) Political context challenges in each country. B) Regional Agenda: This point refers to issues related with: 1) access to information and communications between governments and civil society, 2) Legal framework on access rights. 3) Proceedings and institutional structures of public participation. 4) Education and training on access rights. 5) Funding for public participation and access to information. C) Building a regional partnership: It contains the actions defined to create a regional partnership of TAI Coalitions in Central America.
As part of the program, the meeting had two spaces to tend other topics: Daniel Barragán, from TAI Ecuador, presented the hemispheric strategic plan of Latin America Access Coalitions. Aldo Palacios and Diego Cooper from PP10 Secretariat presented the components and the work of the Partnership for Principle 10.
This workshop is an activity of the project “Partnership 10 Central America” which is funded by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and executed by Foundation for Peace and Democracy(FUNPADEM).
Further information please contact Luis Diego Segura from Foundation for Peace and Democracy, FUNPADEM. Email sociedadcivil@funpadem.org or +506 2283 9435.
By Lalanath de Silva (Posted: March 9, 2009)
The story of the Mae Moh coal plant in Thailand shows why early community engagement is critical to the development and implementation of a sustainable project.
On March 4, 2009, a landmark court decision provided much-needed relief for communities harmed by pollution from a controversial coal power project in northern Thailand. The story of Mae Moh highlights the importance of public participation and access to information in protecting the rights of communities affected by development projects.
About the Mae Moh Coal Power Project
The Mae Moh coal-fired power plant sits in the hills of Lampang in northern Thailand. The plant is an enormous complex consisting of 13 power generating stations. Until 2008, the project was the largest of its kind in Southeast Asia.
Near the power plant lies its fuel source—a lignite coal mine, where open-air pits cut a 135 square kilometer slice out of the surrounding farmland. The government predicts there is enough coal in the area to meet a large percentage of Thailand’s energy needs through 2035 (it currently provides 12% of Thailand’s electricity), and recently approved plans to expand the mine to access 187 million tonnes of additional, proven coal reserves.
Impacts on Local Communities
Sixteen communities live near the power plant and mine. As the project has expanded over time, the mine has grown closer to their lands (only 800 meters away from one village). The power plant has expanded from one unit of 75 Megawatts in 1978 to 13 units of 2,625 Megawatts in 1996, and now consumes over 40,000 tonnes of lignite each day.
Fifteen years ago, the size of the project reached a tipping point. Thousands of communities began to complain of respiratory illnesses and severe damage to their crops. The communities alleged that wind blew coal mine dust into their homes and farmlands and that the smokestacks of the power plant did not contain appropriate filters, allowing the release of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other toxic chemicals into the air.
In 1992, the plant activated all 11 of its generating units (now expanded to 13), and within a few days thousands of people in the area began noticing breathing difficulties, nausea, and inflammation of their eyes and throats. Communities estimated that within 2 months, 50% of rice fields were damaged by sulfur dioxide emissions. In 1998, mobile inspection clinics organized by the government diagnosed 8,214 patients, and found that an estimated 3,463 suffered from respiratory illnesses. Communities alleged that the project was connected to several deaths, including six Mae Moh villagers who died from blood poisoning.
Communities also complained that chemicals from the plant leaked downhill into water supplies, where uninformed people fished from the water. In October 2003, the State Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning Office found high levels of arsenic, chromium, and manganese in most water sources near the plant.
The Government’s Response
The communities claimed that the government continued to grant permits and licenses to expand the project despite these impacts, and that the government failed to inform stakeholders about the project’s environmental and health risks. As people experienced harm to their health and crops, they complained to the government, but felt the government was not responsive. Communities described how public relations officials made promises to address their concerns, but then failed to follow through.
Communities also complained to financiers of the project, including the Asian Development Bank, Export Development Canada, and the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 2001, ADB financed an evaluation of the project’s environmental and health impacts, which brought sulfur dioxide emission levels into compliance with national standards. As a result, fewer people now suffer from respiratory illnesses.
While this was an important first step, the government’s and financiers’ responses did not address communities’ other concerns such as compensation for crop damages, resettlement to safer areas, and payment for medical treatment. As a result, the communities resorted to lawsuits for redress. In 2002, local activist Maliwan Najwirot created the Occupational Patients Rights Network, which has filed several lawsuits against the government. In May 2004, a court ruling awarded approximately US$142,500 to villagers for crop damages caused by the power plant.
On March 4, 2009, a Thai court ordered the government (the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand) to pay $6,800 plus interest to each plaintiff in a lawsuit brought 5 years ago by several hundred villagers whose health was harmed from living near the project. The court also ordered the government to move affected people to new land at least five kilometers from the project, to rehabilitate the environment at the coal mine, and to replace a controversial golf course with trees. This landmark decision provides a much-needed turning point, so that Mae Moh communities can finally begin to restore and rebuild their lives.
Lessons Learned
During the struggles of the past decade, Mae Moh communities have turned their experiences into an important lesson for others. Representatives of other Thai communities frequently visit Ms. Najwirot and the site to learn how to organize themselves, and how to address the tensions that development projects can create between those community members who benefit from jobs and electricity, and those who are harmed.
Mae Moh also provides important lessons for governments and companies about the importance of engaging communities early and throughout the life of a project so they can better identify and mitigate risks, and build trust to resolve problems that do emerge. This in turn helps to prevent costs from disaster cleanup, lawsuits, and tarnished reputations.
Finally, the project demonstrates the importance of transparency and public participation in the review and approval of permits and licenses that entail potentially harmful activities. In Mae Moh’s case, engagement with communities could have provided an earlier indication that construction or expansion of the project was not worth the environmental and health risks.
For more information see the story on the World Resources Institute website.