|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 29 February 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Access to environmental information by Ruwanthi Ariyaratne, Public Interest Law Foundation The term "environmental information" encompasses a wide range of information and can include information surrounding a particular environmental problem such as pollution by a factory in one's neighbourhood, or information about a development project that might affect communities or villages. It can also include information about administrative proceedings leading to decisions taken in respect of such projects, reports, licences, even correspondence. It is information about how one is going to be affected by a project or problem, or information that will help an affected person fight for his rights. Access to information in general is a right that has been recognized in international conventions, and in legal systems around the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to receive information as an integral part of the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also recognized the right to seek and receive information under the right of freedom of expression. Most countries follow these models in including the right to seek and receive information under the right of freedom of expression ensconced in their constitutions, while countries like Australia, Canada, and the US have laws specifically related to freedom of information. Under this umbrella right, the right to environmental information in particular has been receiving prominence in the international arena, given the growth in environmental problems and issues directly affecting the public. This right has been the focus of an international document known as the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, more popularly known as the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention, while recognizing the importance of environmental protection, emphasizes the importance of access to information, public participation in the decision-making process, and transparency and accountability of decision-making bodies. The Convention itself is a result of principles laid down in earlier conventions such as the Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration which states: "Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided." It is obvious from these international conventions and covenants that great weightage is attached to this right in the global arena. However, despite this international acceptance, in Sri Lanka, it is a right which is extremely difficult to exercise by members of the public. Most people know that most often it is very difficult to obtain even simple information from relevant authorities and departments. It appears that obtaining environmental information can be even more tedious, if not sometimes downright impossible. PILF's study on access to environmental information looked at the implementation and exercise of this right under two procedures embodied in the country's environmental laws: the Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure. Among the case studies was a case of pollution of a waterway in Panadura, and the Colombo-Matara Expressway project. The former looked at the operation of the EPL process and the latter looked at the EIA process in relation to access to environmental information. Pollution of the Talpitiya Ela in Panadura The first case examines the position of residents who were affected by pollution of a nearby water body by factories operating in the same area. The Talpitiya Canal in Panadura which had been put to a variety of uses by residents became increasingly polluted, and ultimately unusable, by the discharge of pollutants into the water by two industries that had started operating there. Normally such factories have to apply for and operate under a licence called an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL), issued by the Central Environmental Authority or local authorities. The licence requires that the applicant conform to the relevant standards regarding effluent discharge, noise emissions and air emissions, as well as any other conditions laid down in the licence. Failure to do so can lead to the licence being suspended or revoked. In this case, it was found that the main approach of the residents to address this problem was to make complaints to relevant authorities. While most of the residents knew about the nature of the problem (i.e. the pollution of the waterway by the factories), and the legal requirements of the EPL under the law, only a few knew whether the factories had EPLs. Few people also had tried to obtain copies of the EPL, possibly because there were not very many people who said they were able to understand an EPL. Unlike under the EIA procedure (discussed below), there is no requirement to make the EPL procedure a public one. When any person or company makes an application for such a licence, the law does not require the issuing authority to inform the general public of such an application, or to call for objections or comments on the application. All in all, there seems to be a dearth in the law itself regarding the mandatory provision of such information to people who may be affected by a factory or industry about to be set up in their area. In addition to the lack of requirement under the law, it appears that officials did not take it upon themselves to provide information either. According to the respondents, there were numerous site inspections by the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) or local authority officials following the complaints made by the residents. However, most residents stated that these officials did not speak to them during the inspection. Almost all of the respondents believed they did not have adequate information about the problem. There was a wide variety of suggestions by the residents for keeping the public better informed. Among the top three suggestions were the following: (i) that the State should keep the public informed; (ii) that there should be more transparency in such proceedings; (iii) that there should be discussions with the affected people. It is arguable that if the residents were more informed about the EPL procedure, and had access to relevant documents, they would be better able to protect themselves from unwanted intrusions and adverse effects of industrial operations. Southern Expressway Project The second case study was of the Colombo-Matara Expressway, which is also a development project requiring an EIA under the National Environmental Act (NEA). Here the study focused on two groups of people affected by substantial deviations to the route originally studied in the EIA report and approved by the CEA. These deviations to the route originally approved under the EIA meant that these residents, who were substantially affected by the immediate or imminent loss of their houses and lands, did not have the benefit of information under the EIA procedure. The two deviations were located at Bandaragama in the Kalutara district and Akmeemana in the Galle district. At both locations, it was found that there was a serious dearth of official information provided to the people. In both studies, most of the residents only got to know about the project through friends and neighbours, and only knew their properties were going to be affected after surveying activities were started. A large majority of residents in both areas received no information about how much of their property would be taken, when it would be taken, information about compensation or alternative accommodation or how to apply for the latter. A majority in both areas indicated that the biggest problem in obtaining information was simply the non-availability of information at all. This was followed by the problem of unhelpful officials. A significant majority of those respondents who contacted government departments and local authorities for information graded them unhelpful across the board, from the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) and Road Development Authority (RDA) to local authorities and Ministers. Only a minority knew of their right to obtain or inspect the EIA report and to submit comments on such a report. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
