The Access Initiative

Menu

Topics: Public Participation

New Jakarta Declaration Aims to Strengthen Rights to Environmental Information in Asia

By Carole Excell (Posted: May 10, 2013)

(Original article posted by Carole Excell on WRI Insights on May 9, 2013: http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/new-jakarta-declaration…)

Increased industrialization in Asia has created countless hurdles for communities to protect themselves from pollution. Important government information—such as the amount of pollutants being discharged by nearby factories or results from local air and water quality monitoring—still isn’t readily accessible in user-friendly formats. This practice often leaves the public entirely out of decision-making processes on issues like regulating pollution or expanding industrial factories. In many cases, the public lack the information they need to understand and shield themselves from harmful environmental, social, and health impacts.

This state of affairs recently prompted a group of government officials, NGOs, local community representatives, and academics to demand government action to change the status quo. Last week, representatives from China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Thailand released the Jakarta Declaration for Strengthening the Right to Environmental Information for People and the Environment. The Declaration urges governments to improve access to information on air and water quality pollution in Asia—and offers a detailed road map on how to do so.

The Declaration stemmed from a meeting organized by WRI’s the Access Initiative and the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, held last week in Jakarta. Representatives will now bring the list of findings and recommendations to government officials in their home countries and ask for commitments on increasing transparency.

A Lack of Transparent Environmental Information

China, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia, and Thailand have all adopted Freedom of Information (FOI) laws that guarantee a right of access to information. But while these laws are on the books, they’re not making enough of an impact. The meeting concluded that more must be done to ensure practical access to environmental information. Some conclusions include:

  • In Japan, NGOs’ need more capacity to use the FOI law.

  • In Indonesia, government agencies could make data on air and water—including Environmental Impact Assessments—available electronically and in user-friendly language on their websites.

  • In Mongolia, a program is needed to support citizens’ participation in decisions on the mining sector and to raise public awareness on the importance of the new FOI law.

  • In Thailand, the government needs to reform the FOI legislation, providing administrative regulations to improve implementation. Part of this process could include designing programs to improve the capacity of government officials to implement the law.

  • In the Philippines, the government could development a Pollutant Release and Transfer Register that discloses data on corporate emissions.

The Jakarta Declaration on Strengthening the Right to Environmental Information for People and the Environment

The Jakarta Declaration also outlines ways that Asian nations can improve transparency, access to information, and public participation. It includes 16 guiding principles. A few of the major findings and recommendations include:

  • Significant barriers exist that impair local communities’ access to environmental information across Asia. Some of these barriers include costs; limited information available at local, public authorities; and highly technical information that is difficult for the public to understand.

  • The public has a right to participate in establishing the types of environmental information to be released, including, but not limited to: planning applications, environmental impact assessments, permits, air and water quality monitoring information, and inspection reports.

  • Information must be made available to local communities in a wide range of formats, including internet, TV, radio, newspaper, paper records, and via mobile phones. This information must be systematically provided, timely, reliable, comprehensive, user-friendly, accessible, inexpensive, and accurate.

  • Access to information on corporate, facility, and state-owned enterprise’s pollutant discharges and their impacts on the environment is limited in many countries in the region. Corporate sector emission and discharge data must be provided to the government to enable environmental monitoring. This information directly relates to the environment and public health, and therefore, should be released in the public interest.

For the entire list of findings and recommendations, download the full Declaration.

Moving Forward with Access to Information

The Jakarta Declaration marks an important step forward for improving access to information about air and water. This comprehensive Declaration provides governments with concrete ideas for boosting access to information and safeguarding citizens from projects that may negatively impact air and water quality.

But a roadmap is only worthwhile if it’s actually used. Prioritizing proactive transparency is worthwhile for both the government and the public. Releasing environmental information can have long-term impacts on the health and well-being of communities across Asia.

UK Now in Settlement Talks With Mau Mau Torture Survivors

By Ian Cobain and Jessica Hatcher (Posted: May 7, 2013)

 

Per the Guardian (UK) article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/05/mau-mau-victims-…

The Guardian, Sunday 5 May 2013 09.42 EDT

Litigation in UK uncovered over 8,000 files regarding 37 former UK colonies a year ago, amongst them, a June 1957 memo from then attorney general of the British administration in Kenya, which included the statement on mistreatment of the detainees as “distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia,” but that beatings could be sanctioned, as long as the abuse was kept secret. “If we are going to sin,” he wrote, “we must sin quietly.” After fighting to suppress the case, and avowing to appeal to the highest court, UK Government lawyers now in settlement talks with Mau Mau survivors. Kenyan Mau Mau victims in talks with UK government over legal settlement payments to thousands who were tortured during 1950s insurgency could open door for other victims of British colonial rule.

The British government is negotiating payments to thousands of Kenyans who were detained and severely mistreated during the 1950s Mau Mau insurgency in what would be the first compensation settlement resulting from official crimes committed under imperial rule. In a development that could pave the way for many other claims from around the world, government lawyers embarked upon the historic talks after suffering a series of defeats in their attempts to prevent elderly survivors of the prison camps from seeking redress through the British courts. Those defeats followed the discovery of a vast archive of colonial-era documents which the Foreign Office (FCO) had kept hidden for decades, and which shed new and stark light on the dying days of British rule, not only in Kenya but around the empire. In the case of the Mau Mau conflict, the secret papers showed that senior colonial officials authorised appalling abuses of inmates held at the prison camps established during the bloody conflict, and that ministers and officials in London were aware of a brutal detention regime in which men and women were tortured and killed. As a handful of details began to emerge last week from the confidential talks between lawyers for the government and the Mau Mau veterans, the FCO said it acknowledged the need for debate about Britain’s past, and added: “It is an enduring feature of our democracy that we are willing to learn from our history.” Up to 10,000 former prisoners may be in line for compensation, if the talks result in a settlement. Although the individual amounts will vary greatly, the total compensation is likely to run into tens of millions of pounds. The Foreign Office knows that compensation payments to Mau Mau veterans are likely to trigger claims from other former colonies. Any such claims, if successful, would not only cost the British taxpayer many millions of pounds; they could result in testimony and the emergence of documentary evidence that would challenge long-cherished views of the manner in which Britain withdrew from its empire. Former Eoka guerrillas who were imprisoned and allegedly mistreated by the British in 1950s Cyprus are already considering bringing claims against the British government. The archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross show that its inspectors documented widespread use of torture in British prisons during that insurgency, with some individuals being waterboarded, with kerosene mixed into the water. Historians and personal injury lawyers believe strong claims could be made on behalf of individuals who were imprisoned during the 1960s insurgency in the colony of Aden, now part of Yemen. Papers from the time show abuses inflicted upon prisoners were carefully documented by British officers, and that senior colonial officials kept the FCO informed. Documentary evidence could also support compensation claims from Swaziland in southern Africa and British Guiana, now Guyana, in South America. However, as a result of a number of rulings in the House of Lords, no damages claims arising from events before 1954 can be brought in the English courts. During the process of decolonisation, the eight-year insurgency known as the Mau Mau uprising was possibly the most bloody conflict in which the British became embroiled, with up to 30,000 Kenyan deaths, both insurgent and loyalist. Thousands of people – estimates vary from 80,000 to 300,000 – were detained in a network of camps that were described in one Pulitzer-winning history of the conflict as Britain’s gulag. Official papers from the time confirm that prisoners suffered appalling abuses. Some died under torture, with colonial officials writing about prisoners being “roasted alive”. In one of the few prosecutions brought against the torturers, in December 1954, a Nairobi judge, Arthur Cram, compared the methods employed to those of the Gestapo. One of those abused was Hussein Onyango Obama, the grandfather of Barack Obama. According to his widow, British soldiers forced pins into his fingernails and buttocks and squeezed his testicles between metal rods. Two of the original five claimants who brought the test case against the British government were castrated. It was not until the Kenyan government lifted the ban on the Mau Mau in 2002 that survivors of the camps began to consider legal action, however, and it was a further six years before they asked the high court in London for permission to sue the British government for damages. Government lawyers argued that the claim should not be heard, initially arguing that under the legal principle of state succession, the Mau Mau veterans should be suing the Kenyan government and not the British. A number of historians, called as expert witnesses in the case, realised that the government’s disclosure of documentation was incomplete. This in turn led to the disclosure of the existence of the enormous secret archive at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire, a repository for more than 8,000 files from 37 former colonies. Among them was a damning memo from the colony’s attorney general, Eric Griffith-Jones, a man who had described the mistreatment of the detainees as “distressingly reminiscent of conditions in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia”. Despite his misgivings, Griffith-Jones agreed to draft new legislation that sanctioned beatings, as long as the abuse was kept secret. “If we are going to sin,” he wrote, “we must sin quietly.” When the claimants gave evidence at the high court in London last year, Wambugu Wa Nyingi told how he was detained on Christmas Eve 1952 and held for nine years, much of the time in manacles. He was beaten unconscious during a particularly notorious massacre at a camp at Hola in which 11 men died. “I feel I was robbed of my youth and that I did not get to do the things I should have done as a young man,” he said. “There is a saying in Kikuyu that old age lives off the years of youth, but I have nothing to live off because my youth was taken from me.” Faced with the secret archive evidence and the expert witnesses, government lawyers conceded that the allegations made by Nyingi and the other claimants were true, but continued to oppose their attempt to bring their case, arguing that too much time had elapsed for there to be a fair trial. That was rejected by the high court last October, with the judge ruling that a fair trial remained possible. “The documentation is voluminous,” he said. “And the governments and military commanders seem to have been meticulous record keepers.” The FCO announced that it would appeal against a judgment that had “potentially significant and far-reaching legal implications”, and a hearing was due to be held later this month. The government also faced considerable international political pressure, with the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture, Juan Méndez, calling publicly on the government to “provide full redress to the victims, including fair and adequate compensation”, and writing privately to David Cameron, along with two former special rapporteurs, to warn that the government’s position was undermining its moral authority across the world. “In our view the response of the British government to vulnerable and elderly victims of (acknowledged) British torture is shameful,” they wrote. Last month the FCO told the claimants’ lawyers, Leigh Day, that it wished to adjourn the appeal and start negotiating a settlement. In Nairobi, the Kenya Human Rights Commission compiled a list of around 50,000 people whose claims to be Mau Mau veterans were confirmed by a government committee. This list has since been divided into five categories. George Morare, senior programme officer with the commission, said that any compensation agreed would be paid only to members of one category: “Those who can show they suffered personal injury and grievous bodily harm, such as castration or rape.”Tom Mboya, a former political adviser to the British high commission in Nairobi who now runs the Kenyan civil rights group Inuka, said: “Symbolically, a payout by the British government might provide further validation for the younger generation of the role the Mau Mau played in the struggle for independence in this country. Recent struggles often obstruct our ability to look at how far we have come as a country, and indeed, where we have come from. It is critically important that younger Kenyans understand this history.” Dan Leader, a partner with Leigh Day, said: “The parties are currently exploring the possibility of settling the claims brought by our clients. Clearly, given the ongoing negotiations, we can’t comment further.” The Foreign Office also said that it would be “inappropriate” to discuss the talks. In a prepared statement, however, it added: “We believe there should be a debate about the past. It is an enduring feature of our democracy that we are willing to learn from our history. “We understand the pain and grievance felt by those, on all sides, who were involved in the divisive and bloody events of the Emergency period in Kenya. It is right that those who feel they have a case are free to take it to the courts. “Our relationship with Kenya and its people has moved on and is characterised by close co-operation and partnership, building on the many positives from our shared history.”

El acceso a la información ambiental

By Patricia Madrigal Cordero (Posted: May 7, 2013)

Cuando los países firmaron, en 1992, la Declaración de Río, en la Primera Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Ambiente y Desarrollo, incluyeron el principio 10, que hoy se conoce como el que establece los derechos de acceso.

Este principio dice textualmente: “El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda. En el plano nacional, toda persona deberá tener acceso adecuado a la informaciónsobre el medio ambiente de que dispongan las autoridades públicas, incluida la información sobre los materiales y las actividades que encierran peligro en sus comunidades, así como la oportunidad de participaren los procesos de adopción de decisiones. Los Estados deberán facilitar y fomentar la sensibilización y la participación de la población poniendo la información a disposición de todos. Deberá proporcionarse acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos, entre éstos el resarcimiento de daños y los recursos pertinentes”.

Veinte años más tarde, en junio del año pasado, durante la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, conocida como Río+20, 12 países de América Latina y el Caribe firmaron la Declaración sobre la aplicación del principio 10.

En esta declaración manifestaron, expresamente, su voluntad de iniciar un proceso que explore la viabilidad de contar con un instrumento regional que puede ir desde guías, talleres y buenas prácticas hasta un convenio regional abierto a todos los países de la región, sobre los derechos de acceso que se consideran esenciales para la promoción del desarrollo sostenible y de la democracia, promoviendo un diálogo sustantivo con la sociedad civil e instituciones intergubernamentales.

El proceso ha ido tomando fuerza y debe reconocerse el liderazgo asumido por nuestro país. Se han realizado dos reuniones de puntos focales y el número de países ha aumentado a 14. Se cuenta con una hoja de ruta y un plan de acción hasta el 2014, en donde se constituyen dos grupos de trabajo: uno sobre fortalecimiento de capacidades y cooperación, que estará coordinado por Jamaica y Colombia, y otro sobre derechos de acceso, consulta e instrumento regional, coordinado por Costa Rica y Brasil.

El concepto utilizado para promover los derechos de acceso es el más amplio conocido en materia de derechos humanos, el concepto de público, que promueve que cualquier persona, física o jurídica puede participar.

La Secretaría Ejecutiva del proceso ha sido asumida por la Cepal, y ha recibido el apoyo político de la Celac y la UEE.

Para tener un punto de partida, la Cepal ha realizado un diagnóstico muy interesante sobre la situación de los derechos de acceso en la región que está disponible en Internet: (http://www.cepal.org/rio20/noticias/paginas/8/49468/2013-246PR10Accesoala_informacion.pdf)

Este estudio indica que en América Latina y el Caribe ha habido avances en este tema.

La adopción de un convenio regional favorecería una política de Estado y no solo de Gobierno, abriría mayores posibilidades de cooperación y fortalecería nuestras instituciones regionales.

Avanzar en el fortalecimiento del acceso a la información, a la participación y a la justicia ambiental nos acerca a una cultura de tolerancia frente a las diferencias y a la diversidad. Permite una mayor justicia, para que los costos de la conservación o el desarrollo no recaiga en los sectores más vulnerables, y ayuda a prevenir la escalada de conflictos socioambientales que se han dado en la región latinoamericana y el Caribe, generando tensión social.

(original article: http://www.nacion.com/2013-05-04/Opinion/El-acceso-a-la-info…)

Jakarta Declaration on Strengthening the Right to Information for People and the Environment

By Nadia Vandergriff (Posted: May 1, 2013)

WRI’s Access Initiative hosted a regional meeting in Jakarta to propose new actions to improve the current right of access to environmental information in the Asian region. The event provided a space for peer learning about issues faced by communities in seeking access to environmental information through the use of freedom of information laws and promotion of proactive release of environmental information. Participants included international agencies, high level government officials, civil society representatives, community members and freedom of information and access to environmental information professionals from Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Philippines and Mongolia. The meeting saw the release of the Jakarta Declaration on Strengthening the Right to information for people and the environment.

14 países de la región adoptan un ambicioso plan de acción para mejorar la implementación de los derechos de acceso

By Daniel Barragan (Posted: April 19, 2013)

Catorce países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe se reunieron en Guadalajara, México, los días 16 y 17 de abril del 2013, en la Segunda Reunión de Puntos Focales de los Países Signatarios de la Declaración sobre la aplicación del Principio 10, y adoptaron un ambicioso plan de acción (2013-2014) para mejorar los derechos de acceso a la información, participación pública y acceso a la justicia ambiental en la región. El Plan de Acción busca implementar la Declaración de sobre el Principio 10, que fue firmado en la Conferencia de Río +20 en junio del 2012, y bajo el cual los países acordaron trabajar hacia un instrumento regional para mejorar el cumplimiento de los derechos de acceso.

Los países signatarios de la Declaración se comprometieron bajo este Plan de Acción a:

  • Promover la Declaración e incorporar nuevos países de la región al proceso;

  • Fortalecer y mostrar el progreso realizado sobre los derechos de acceso a la información, participación y justicia;

  • Promover la participación activa de la sociedad civil a nivel nacional;

  • Trabajar hacia la creación de un instrumento regional a través de grupos de trabajo para deliberar sobre los temas de fortalecimiento de capacidades y los esfuerzos de cooperación, y determinar la naturaleza y ámbito del instrumento regional.

El Plan incluye un número de disposiciones innovadoras, incluyendo procedimientos para la participación del público en este proceso regional y sus grupos de trabajo y oportunidades para una cercana cooperación Sur-Sur en el fortalecimiento de capacidades sobre los derechos para promover la transparencia, la participación pública y el acceso a la justicia. También provee un mayor soporte para la efectiva implementación a nivel nacional. En la reunión se sumaron a la Declaración los gobiernos de Colombia y Honduras, también se realizó la elección de copresidentes para ejecutar los grupos de trabajo. Costa Rica y Brasil recibieron el mandato de diseñar el instrumento regional sobre el Principio 10 y a Jamaica y Colombia se les dio el rol de facilitar el trabajo sobre cooperación y fortalecimiento de capacidades.

La iniciativa de Acceso estuvo fuertemente representada por varios de sus socios, que contribuyeron a lograr un documento de consenso que refleje las preocupaciones y aportes de sociedad civil. Sin lugar a dudas el trabajo articulado desarrollado nos permitió posicionar a TAI, como una red organizada y seria, comprometida con el proceso de la Declaración.

En palabras de algunos de los participantes:

“Este nuevo Plan de Acción muestra la voluntad política para transformar la justicia ambiental y la transparencia en la región. Determina el lugar y la agenda para abordar los desafíos de negociar un instrumento regional”, fueron declaraciones de Carole Excell, del Secretariado de la Iniciativa de Acceso.

Por su parte el embajador Jose Balmaceda, representante del gobierno de Chile, mencionó que “[el Plan de Acción]… es una fuerte señal política para la comunidad internacional de que estamos respondiendo de manera responsable a este compromiso (al Principio 10). Sin embargo, creo que estamos en una nueva época en la historia de la región. Es la primera vez que representantes gubernamentales de 14 países y la sociedad civil se sentaron a debatir al mismo nivel, con transparencia y confianza, cuestiones relevantes para el futuro de la región. Este es un testimonio de la madurez en la región. Hemos sido capaces de llegar a un consenso sobre el Plan de Acción que nos permitirá seguir adelante con los procesos nacionales y esfuerzos regionales. Estoy seguro que este resultado motivará a otras naciones en la región a unirse al proceso.”

Daniel Barragán, del Centro Ecuatoriano de Derecho Ambiental (CEDA), declaró: “esperamos que a fines del 2014 contemos con un instrumento sobre el Principio 10, que establezca lineamientos y acciones concretas para garantizar a todos los ciudadanos y comunidades de nuestra región una participación efectiva e informada, para que tengamos voz y podamos “ser parte” de las decisiones sobre el ambiente y los recursos naturales”.

India’s Supreme Court Directs Mining Company to Seek Approval of Gram Sabha (Village Assembly)

By Ritwick Dutta (Posted: April 18, 2013)

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India today (18-4-2013) refused to allow the UK based Mining giant: Vedanta to source its mineral requirement for its alumina refinery plant from the Niyamgiri Hills of Kalahandi District of Orissa till it has obtained an approval from the Gram Sabha (general assembly) of villagers in accordance with the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The verdict recognize the rights of forest-dwelling Dongria-Kondh tribals to have a say in projects that affect their habitat, economic development and culture, the Supreme Court has said that it’s up to the Gram Sabhas or local self-governments in two districts to decide if the Niyamgiri Hills are home to their deity. They have been asked to share their decision within three months with the union Environment Ministry. The Supreme Court said: “If the project, affects their (tribals) religious rights, especially their right to worship their deity, known as Niyam Raja, in the hills top of the Niyamgiri range of hills, that right has to be preserved and protected. We find that this aspect of the matter has not been placed before the Gram Sabha for their active consideration.” The fight against Vedanta has been unique for it has seen human rights activists, tribal rights activists and wildlife conservations joining hands to protect the ecology and the traditional culture and livelihood of the tribal communities. The judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by a bench comprising of Justice Aftab Alam, Justice Radhakrishnan and Justice Gogoi is the latest blow to Vedanta Resources PLC, whose Alumina Refinery project as well as mining plans have been a subject of series of litigation before various courts since the year 2004. The local tribal communities comprising of the Dongria Kondhs have been at the forefront of the legal battle against the mining proposed on a hill regarded as sacred by them.

The litigation against Vedanta and the Orissa Mining corporation has been going on for nearly a decade at various courts and tribunal: the Central Empowered Committee, The National Environment Appellate Authority, The National Green Tribunal, the Orissa and Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. On the issue of the rights of traditional forest dwellers, the Supreme Court observed that customary and cultural rights of indigenous people have also been the subject matter of various international conventions, “Many of the STs [Scheduled Tribes] and other TFDs [Traditional Forest dwellers] are totally unaware of their rights. They also experience lot of difficulties in obtaining effective access to justice because of their distinct culture and limited contact with mainstream society. Many a times, they do not have the financial resources to engage in any legal actions against development projects undertaken in their abode or the forest in which they stay. They have a vital role to play in the environmental management and development because of their knowledge andtraditional practices. State has got a duty to recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interest so that they can effectively participate in achieving sustainable development.” In view of the above, the Supreme Court held that the Forest Rights Act had been enacted conferring powers on the Gram Sabha constituted under the Forest Rights Act to protect the community resources, individual rights, cultural and religious rights. The Court also clarified that the Act protects a wide range of rights of forest dwellers and Scheduled Tribes including the customary rights to use forest land as a community forest resource and not restricted merely to property rights or to areas of habitation and that the Act intends to protect custom, usage, forms, practices and ceremonies which are appropriate to the traditional practices of forest dwellers. The Court also clarified that religious freedom guaranteed to scheduled tribes and traditional forest dwellers under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is intended to be a guide to a community of life and social demands. The above mentioned Articles guarantee them the right to practice and propagate not only matters of faith or belief, but all those rituals and observations which are regarded as integral part of their religion. Their right to worship the deity Niyam-Raja has, therefore, to be protected and preserved. In this regard, the Court observed that the Gram Sabha has a role to play in safeguarding the customary and religious rights of the STs and other TFDs under the Forest Rights Act and has an obligation to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the STs and other forest dwellers, their cultural identity, community resources etc., which they have to discharge following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs vide its letter dated 12.7.2012.

In view of this, the Supreme Court has directed the Gram Sabhas of Kalahandi and Rayagada to decide whether or not any religious right or the abode of the deity Niyam Raja would be disturbed by the bauxite mining project and if, in any way, the same affects their religious rights, in the hills top of the Niyamgirirange of hills, has clarified that such right has to be preserved and protected. The Supreme Court also observed that the Alumina Refinery Project and Bauxite Mining Project are interdependent and inseparably linked together and, hence, any wrong doing by Alumina Refinery Project may cast a reflection on the Bauxite Mining Project and may be a relevant consideration for denial of Stage II clearance to the Bauxite Mining Project.

Breaking News: Columbia Joins the P10 Declaration!

By Nadia Vandergriff (Posted: April 17, 2013)

At the Second Meeting of the Focal Points of the signatory countries of the LAC P10 Declaration, in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, Columbia joined the Principle 10 Legal Declaration, bringing the number of countries to join the Latin America and Caribbean Principle 10 Declaration to 14.

An Action Plan for Environmental Justice in Latin America and the Caribbean

By Carole Excell (Posted: April, 16, 2013)

(Read the original story at:http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/04/action-plan-environment…)

Without the right laws and safeguards in place, development can come at the expense of the environment and local communities. This point is especially evident in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Newspapers across the region regularly document conflicts over land and natural resource use, hydroelectric power development, oil exploitation, expansion of agriculture into virgin forests, and the disruption of indigenous practices.

Many of these conflicts occur because countries lack strong laws and practices that encourage the public’s access to information and early participation in government decision-making. Without these laws in place, citizens can’t legally obtain information on projects like proposed oil wells or highways—or engage in the decision-making processes about developing and approving these projects. Governments can then make decisions without considering the impact on local citizens. The resulting social, environmental, or health costs often fall disproportionately on the affected communities. (See our video, “Sunita,” for more information on the need for access to information laws).

But the situation in the LAC region could be poised to change, depending on what happens at a meeting this week. Representatives from 13 countries and two observer countries will meet with civil society groups in Guadalajara, Mexico, to finalize a two-year action plan on implementing the LAC Principle 10 Regional Declaration. If attendees come up with a strong plan, several LAC countries will come closer to adopting a plan for improving environmental justice and public participation rights across the region.

The Latin America and Caribbean Principle 10 Regional Declaration

Principle 10, or the “environmental democracy principle,” mandates the public’s right to access environmental information, participate in any government decision affecting the environment, and complain and seek redress from judicial or administrative bodies. The Latin America and the Caribbean Principle 10 Regional Declaration was adopted at the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012, marking the first time that developing countries came together to formally consider the possibility of creating a regional instrument to implement Principle 10.

Which Countries Have Joined the Regional Principle 10 Declaration?

So far, governments from 13 LAC nations have signed on to the regional Principle 10 Declaration. These countries include:

  • Brazil
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Honduras
  • Jamaica
  • Mexico
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Uruguay

So far, governments from 13 LAC nations have signed on to the Declaration, and signatory governments prepared a Road Map in Chile last November. The formal Plan of Action is to be approved at the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) meeting in Mexico, which begins tomorrow. This Plan of Action is important because it will commit governments to the type of regional instrument to be created in the region, define the way people and organizations can get involved, and establish concrete steps that governments will take to prepare for a negotiation process that will begin in 2015.

3 Principle to Ensure a Strong Plan of Action

The governments of Chile, Dominican Republic, and Mexico have already released a draft Plan of Action. Finalizing this plan will be a significant step forward in the LAC Principle 10 process, but what’s more important is that the plan is a strong one that puts the public’s rights first. WRI’s Access Initiative, along with a number of our partners, believe that the Plan of Action must contain three key elements:

  1. Demonstrated Political Will–to make serious progress on discussion of a legally binding regional convention for Principle 10 (rather than voluntary), as well as its scope and a vision for success. A legally binding regional convention presents opportunities to increase the adoption of access rights in the region and address the lack of implementation and enforcement that currently exists (see our paper, From Principles to Rights).

  2. Resources: A LAC Principle 10 Declaration won’t achieve results unless governments and civil society can build their capacities to ensure adoption of new freedom of information laws, improve public participation processes, and boost judicial and administrative justice. We’ll need a clear method to obtain financial, educational, and other resources to move this process forward.

  3. Strong Rules for Public Participation: Governments can’t design a regional instrument all on their own. Strong rules should facilitate participation of all stakeholders—public, private, and civil society groups—including those most affected by environmental harms, such as children, women, and indigenous groups. Without strong participation and official roles for civil society (e.g. on working groups or as vice chairs), this process will fail to meet the needs of those in each country in the region.

Now is the time to make the important decisions that will guarantee the Principle 10 Declaration process is successful. A strong foundation during the planning phase will lead to a strong regional instrument during the implementation phase. Developing a robust Principle 10 Convention just may ensure that we see fewer and fewer of those media reports on environmental and development conflict in Latin America and the Caribbean.

India National Green Tribunal Landmark Judgment on Access to Information

By Ritwick Dutta (Posted: April 7, 2013)

Save Mon Region Federation and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors M.A 104 of 2012. Judgment dated 14-3-2013

The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar in a significant judgment clarified on key provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 specifically as to the meaning of the word ‘communication’ of an order of environmental clearance as well as ‘aggrieved person’. It directed that the copy of the entire Environmental clearance (along with the general and specific condition) for all projects which are granted environmental clearance in accordance under the EIA Notification, 2006 be made available to the public through websites, public notice board, publication in local newspaper as well as providing copies to local bodies including panchayats and municipal bodies. It is pertinent to point out that till date no project proponent or the Government (MoEF or State Government) has ever published the entire environmental clearance order in any newspaper despite the statutory requirement in the EIA Notification. In many instances it is not even available at the website of the MoEF. Due to lack of knowledge about the grant of environmental clearance, concerned citizens and groups are unable to file an appeal before the NGT on time. The issue of time is critical since the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provides for a maximum of 90 days from the date of communication of an order granting environmental clearance to file an appeal before the Tribunal (termed as period of ‘limitation’). Many environmental clearances granted to potentially destructive projects go legally unchallenged in view of lack of information of the approval granted. The NGT has held that the limitation as prescribed under Section 16 of the NGT Act, shall commence from the date the order is communicated and not when the order is passed. The NGT noted ‘ communication of the order has to be by putting it in the public domain for the benefit of the public at large’. The NGT took strong exception to lack of transparency in the MOEF specifically with respect to its website. The bench observed ‘it can safely be concluded that all is not well with the website/portal of the MoEF. It is not only the administrative duty but a statutory obligation of the MoEF to place such (Environmental Clearance) orders in the public domain to ensure their accessibility to the public at large”. The NGT has held that the obligation to ‘communicate’ the order as widely as possible arises in view of the fact that ‘any person’ is entitled to file an appeal before the NGT irrespective of whether the person has any direct and indirect interest in a given project.

The Judgment is a step towards ensuring greater access to environmental information and at the same time ensures that that the remedy of appeal as provided in the NGT Act is made effective and doors of the Tribunal are not shut on grounds of narrow interpretation of locus standi and limitation.

For Summary of the judgment please see: http://ercindia.org/index.php/latest-updates/latest/658-dire… For the full judgment please see: http://www.greentribunal.in/judgment/104-2012%28MA%2914Mar2013final_order.pdf