The Access Initiative

Menu

Topics: Public Participation

El Principio 10 en Costa Rica: Situación y desafíos

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.

U.S. Bill to Limit Corporate Influence in Congressional Elections

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.

La Iniciativa de Acceso en el proceso de la V Cumbre de las Américas / The Access Initiative in the V Summit of the Americas…

By Daniel Barragan (Posted: March 9, 2009) 

Del 17 al 19 de abril de 2009 se realizará la V Cumbre de las Américas en Puerto España, Trinidad y Tobago, enfocada a “Asegurar el futuro de nuestros ciudadanos promoviendo la prosperidad humana, la seguridad energética y la sostenibilidad ambiental”.

Como parte del proceso de Cumbres, la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) ha venido promoviendo la participación de la sociedad civil de las Américas a través de una serie de foros subregionales en Puerto España (octubre 2008), San Salvador (diciembre 2008) y Lima (febrero 2009); y un foro hemisférico en Washington D.C.(marzo 2009).

Estos espacios de participación para la sociedad civil fueron muy importantes para poder analizar y debatir la propuesta de resolución que adoptarán los gobiernos del continente en abril próximo, y definir propuestas concretas para enriquecer esta declaración.Justamente en estos espacios ha sido relevante el rol de las organizaciones miembros de la Iniciativa de Acceso, que han logrado incidir en este proceso en dos vías:

(i) Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (CEDA), AC Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia y Corporación Participa, incidieron para incorporar en las recomendaciones del Foro Subregional de América del Sur (Lima), a los derechos de acceso, ya no como un reconocimiento expreso por parte de los gobiernos, sino como una garantía por parte de los Estados para su implementación. La propuesta insertada en el párrafo 44 del documento de recomendaciones dice:

“También trabajaremos en aras de promover una gobernabilidad ambiental sana, mediante el refuerzo de las leyes ambientales nacionales y creando capacidad institucional para la gestión democrática de los recursos naturales, garantizando el acceso de los ciudadanos a la información ambiental, a la participación en los procesos de toma de decisiones y a mecanismos de justicia ambiental. De igual forma, los gobiernos nos comprometemos a desarrollar un sistema de indicadores ambientales orientados a monitorear la información y justicia ambiental, en coordinación con la sociedad civil.”

De igual forma esta propuesta fue apoyada y promovida por los socios TAI presentes en el Foro Hemisférico (Washington D.C.) realizado el pasado 3 y 4 de marzo: World Resources Institute (Estados Unidos), Corporación Participa(Chile), Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (Ecuador), AC Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia (Venezuela) y FUNPADEM (Costa Rica); logrando que conste en el documento de recomendaciones de este Foro.

(ii) Adicionalmente, la Iniciativa de Acceso estuvo presente en dos espacios en el Foro Hemisférico de la Sociedad Civil (Washington D.C.). El primer espacio estuvo dentro del panel de Seguridad energética y sostenibilidad ambiental, en el que Linda Shaffer difundió la Iniciativa de Acceso y habló sobre los fundamentos de la gobernabilidad ambiental que son el corazón de nuestro proceso.

El segundo espacio tuvo lugar en la Sesión Especial de la Comisión de Gestión de Cumbres Interamericanas y Participación de la Sociedad Civil en las actividades de la OEA, en donde el Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental presentó a la Iniciativa de Acceso y el trabajo que desarrollamos como un mecanismo de apoyo al seguimiento de los mandatos de cumbres en los temas ambientales.

Fue muy importante la presencia de la Iniciativa de Acceso en estos espacios, a través de sus miembros presentes, no solo para reforzar nuestra presencia institucional y liderazgo en los procesos de gobernabilidad ambiental, sino para poder incidir en foros políticos y procesos de desarrollo de políticas públicas.

The Access Initiative in the V Summit of the Americas process

From April 17 to 19, 2009 will be held the V Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, aimed at “Securing Our Citizens’ Future by Promoting Human Prosperity, Energy Security and Environmental Sustainability”.

As part of the Summit, the Organization of American States (OAS) has been promoting the participation of civil society in the Americas through a series of subregional forums in Port of Spain (October 2008), San Salvador (December 2008) and Lima (February 2009) and a hemispheric forum in Washington DC (2009 March).

These spaces for civil society were very important to analyze and discuss the proposed resolution to adopt the governments of the continent in April, and define concrete proposals to enhance this statement. Precisely in these areas has been relevant the role of TAI members, who influenced this process in two ways:

(i) Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (CEDA), AC Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia and Corporación Participa influenced to incorporate in the recommendations of the Sub-Regional Forum of South America (Lima), the access rights, not as an explicit recognition by governments, but as a guarantee by the States for their implementation. The proposal inserted on paragraph 44 of the document reads:

“We will also work towards promoting sound environmental governance by strengthening national environmental laws and building institutional capacity for the democratic management of natural resources, guaranteeing citizens access to environmental information, to participation in decision-making processes, and to mechanisms for environmental justice. In addition, the governments commit to developing a system of environmental indicators geared toward monitoring environmental information and justice, in coordination with civil society.”

The proposal was also supported and promoted by TAI partners in the Hemispheric Forum (Washington DC) held on March 3 and 4: World Resources Institute (Estados Unidos), Corporación Participa (Chile), Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (Ecuador), AC Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia (Venezuela) y FUNPADEM (Costa Rica); achieving the inclusion in the document of recommendations of this Forum.

(ii) Additionally, the Access Initiative was present at two spaces in the Civil Society Hemispheric Forum (Washington DC). The first space was on the panel on Energy security and environmental sustainability, in which Linda Shaffer introduced the Access Initiative and spoke about the foundations of environmental governance that are the heart of our process.

The second space was in the Special Session of the Committee on Inter-American Summits Management and Civil Society Participation in OAS Activities, in which the Ecuadorian Center of Environmental Law (Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental) presented the Access Initiative process and the work we develop as a support mechanism to follow the summits mandates on environmental issues.

It was very important the presence of the Access Initiative in these spaces, through its members present, not only to strengthen our institutional presence and leadership in environmental governance processes, but in order to influence policy forums and of public policy development processes.

Más información / more information:
http://www.civil-society.oas.org/Default.htm
http://fifthsummitoftheamericas.org/home/

Lessons from a Community’s Struggle with Coal in Thailand

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.

Environmental Democracy

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.

Highlights from the TAI Global Gathering

By Monika Kerdeman (Posted: March 6, 2009) 

50 people representing 29 countries participated in the second TAI Global Gathering, held in Sligo, Ireland at the Sligo Institute of Technology. The gathering was the largest international conference held at Sligo Institute of Technology. Highlights from the meeting include:

  1. Jeremy Wates, from the Aarhus Convention Secretariat in Geneva, opened the conference by discussing the importance of access work in the role of shaping environmental policy.

  2. The deputy leader of Seanad Eireann (the Senate of Ireland), and Green Party chairperson, Senator Dan Boyle, addressed the gathering. He spoke on Ireland’s need to ratify the Aarhus convention and the importance of access to information in a mature democracy.

  3. TAI partners shared ideas, stories, successes and solutions for moving the network to more action on the ground.

  4. Latin American partners agreed on next steps for a collaborative regional advocacy plan.

  5. The TAI Secretariat shared major themes and messages from its publication, Voice and Choice: Opening the Door to Environmental Democracy.

  6. Partners discussed case studies on access rights for the poor carried out by five TAI partners and next steps for including poverty-access rights analysis in all future TAI assessments.

  7. The Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) introduced partners to a draft citizen’s toolkit.

  8. New sectors were explored in the context of TAI, including climate change, forestry and aid effectiveness.

Click here to read the full report from the gathering.

TAI Global Gathering 2008

Published: 2008

This report is a detailed account of the objectives and outcomes from the second TAI Global Gathering, held in Sligo Ireland. At the gathering more then 50 TAI partners from 29 different countries met to discuss network activities and share access rights success stories.

Environmental and Social Assessment Memos

Published: 2008

The objective of these memos is to provide helpful informational research to further populate the available materials on access rights issues.

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.