Access Indicators: A New Tool to Track Government Performance on Right to Know and Participate*
by Fran Irwin, World Resources Institute

 

Based on the right to know, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) gives communities   information to track and compare the performance of industrial facilities in reducing releases and transfers of toxic substances.  Access indicators also use the power of standardized information that is actively disseminated to the public.  They offer a tool to help citizens and communities track and compare the performance of governments in providing access to environmental information, decision making, and justice.  Just as citizens and communities use the TRI to protect health and environment, they can use “access” indicators to strengthen the right to know and participate. 

 

What are access indicators and how are they being developed?

 

The Access Initiative is a global coalition of public interest groups seeking to promote public access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision making.  Implementing  these public access principles requires national policies, legislation, institutions, and practices.  With the goal of establishing common standards and good practices, the Access Initiative is proposing and assessing indicators of performance in five areas:

 

·         Information in emergencies and monitoring information about the quality of the environment and natural resources;

·         Information about the environmental performance of industrial facilities;

·         Opportunities for review and comment on decisions on sectoral policies, programs and plans with potential environmental impacts;

·         Opportunities for review and comment on site-specific decisions with potential environmental impacts;

·         Opportunities to appeal to administrative agencies and courts to seek redress and remedy for infringement of rights to access to information and participation.

 

Started in 2000, the Initiative is led at the international level by a core team composed of the World Resources Institute (Washington, D.C.) the Environmental Management and Law Association (Budapest), Corporacion Participa (Santiago, Chile), and the Thailand Environment Institute (Bangkok).  In the United States, Ohio Citizen Action and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition are taking the lead in testing the indicators at the state level.  The Environmental Law Institute is assessing the general legal framework supporting access to information, decision making, and justice at the federal level. The report based on this US work will be released in the spring 2002 as one step in working toward three longer-range goals:

 

·         Introduce the use of consistent access indicators that will allow tracking state and US performance, comparing performance among states, and comparing US performance with that of other countries;

·         Build a network of grassroots and national environmental and civic groups with the commitment and capacity to assess and publicize “access” performance on a regular basis;

 

*Paper prepared by Frances Irwin with colleagues in The Access Initiative for Conference on Advancing and Defending the Right to Know, Bauman Foundation and Beldon Fund, Washington, D.C., November 15-17, 2001.  For more information, see http://www.accessinitiative.org or contact Michael Stanley-Jones (msjones@svtc.org), Sandy Buchanan (sbuchanan@ohiocitizen.org), Simona Vaclavikova (Svaclavikova@ohiocitizen.org) Carl Bruch (bruch@eli.org), or Fran Irwin (fran@wri.org).

·         Use the results to raise awareness and commitment to protecting and improving right-to-know and act policies and practices.

 

US groups will share experience with groups currently pilot testing the draft indicators in eight other countries: Hungary, Chile, Mexico, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Thailand, and Uganda and with groups in additional countries planning to join the Initiative in 2002.

 

Relation of RTK and access indicators

 

Access indicators complement the right to know by placing it in a broader Framework for Assessing Public Access to Environmental Decision Making.  This framework, drafted by Initiative’s core team, covers not only access to major types of environmental information but also access to decision making processes and to judicial redress.  In doing this, the Framework builds on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and regional initiatives including the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.  (See Casey-Lefkowitz paper.) Part 1 of the Framework  provides indicators  for assessing national legal systems governing public access. The assessment of the United States against these indicators will provide a view of the “access” structure as the country focuses increasingly on security from terrorism. 

 

The access indicators also draw directly on right to know experience. One access indicator addresses facility-level information on environmental compliance and performance while others cover emergencies, air and water monitoring, and broad state of the environment reporting.

In addition, the Access Initiative’s international report, aimed at putting implementation of Principle 10 by governments high on the agenda of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in September 2002, will include a review of countries’ action on establishing Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (international term for the TRI). 

 

This review will places countries in one five categories:  no action, pilot activities, single-media registers, operating registers missing key elements, and full registers.  Because Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers have been developed through cooperation among countries and the elements are standardized to some extent, they can be compared more easily than most public access instruments. The report to the WSSD will also include a look at access to decision making under national laws on environmental impact assessment in several regions and of practices of example international organizations (such as development banks and WTO) in providing non-governmental groups access to decision making. 

 

What opportunities does the Access Initiative offer for US RTK groups?

 

1.      Influence the development of the access indicators.  Suggest ways to improve indicators described further in Appendix 1. Review and comment on the overall indicator methodology.  Propose and help develop additional indicators.

 

2.      Explore becoming formal Access Initiative partner to apply indicators and devise ways to use results in state campaign to protect right to know and strengthen public access.  The Initiative plans to add another two to four states in 2002-03. 

 

3.      Use results of assessment of US legal framework for access to strengthen national policy, for example, by working toward adoption of a national citizen’s platform on right to know.

 

4.      Build alliances with groups working on access in other countries. Explore opportunities to learn from what groups are doing to promote access in other countries and build joint campaigns as suggested in the Casey-Lefkowitz. One emerging focus for joint activities is greenhouse gases.  Proposed legislation will be introduced in Congress to establish a U.S. greenhouse gas emission registry in the next few months. A corporate accounting and reporting standard was just published in October. (See http://www.ghgprotocol.org.)  A new report documents limitations of current U.S. voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. (See http://www.nrdc.org). U.S. groups can bring their experience with right to know to this arena.  They can work with NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe, who are adapting the access indicators to climate protection.  See Appendix 2.

 

 

Appendix 1:  Access Indicator for Facility Compliance and Performance Information

 

The indicator for facility compliance and performance information is actually built from 17 separate indicators organized under four elements:

·         Legal mandates and efforts established for different types of facility reporting;

·         Collection and reporting of data on amounts of emissions/waste

·         Management of data on releases and or transfers

·         Dissemination and use of data on releases and or transfers

 

Thus under the first element of legal mandates and efforts, the indicators cover:

·         Legal mandate and information dissemination for facility compliance

·         Legal mandate and efforts to establish Pollutant Release and Transfer Register

·         Efforts to establish company reports

 

Performance by a state or country will be assessed by applying values to each indicator.  A country or state would be assessed at one of five values for the indicator “legal mandate and efforts to establish dissemination for facility compliance.”  Thus the first value for this indicator is “no legal mandates”; the fifth is “legal mandates require reports on compliance with limits on facility emissions to air and to water and legal mandate to disseminate the information.”  The values may leave room for improvement. A value for assessing Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers includes reports on greenhouse gases and transfers in products, while no Registers currently include both. 

 

To ensure credibility, the methodology lays out an approach to selecting what cases to examine.  The pilot test groups were asked to look at a facility reporting system over the two-year period 1999-2000.  They were also asked to select five facilities representing key economic sectors and a single primary sector to assess some of the indicators.  California chose the electronics sector which dominates Silicon Valley and facilities that fill different niches from semiconductor manufacture and chip fabrication to computer assembly and recycling.  Ohio will look at the power sector.

 

The complete methodology for the facility information indicator can be found by going to http://www.accessinititiave/ag.html and looking for Part II.D.  The indicators will be reviewed at a meeting in Budapest in late November 2001 by the participants from nine countries that have pilot tested them.  The methodology will then revised.  In preparation for that meeting, the participating US groups expect to complete their initial drafts in early November just before the Right to Know Conference.

 

While RTK activists may be most interested initially in the facility indicator or other indicators related to information, the introduction to the Framework for Assessing Public Access to Environmental Decision-Making, particularly Tables 1 and 2, will be helpful in placing the indicators to access to information in broader context.

 

 

 

Appendix 2: Using Access Indicators for Climate Protection in Central and Eastern Europe

 

A project in Central and Eastern Europe will demonstrate the use of access indicators in building public access to information and participation into efforts by countries to implement their commitments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.  The World Resources Institute and the Regional Environment Center for Central and Eastern Europe are working with partner organizations in Estonia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia to adapt the indicators developed in Access Initiative. 

The indicators are divided into three parts that will evaluate access to information and participation and capacity building.  They cover both national level policy and facility and project level performance.

1. Access to General Information and Compliance

·         National Communications (periodicity and mandate of reports, quality, distribution and accessibility of reports, diversity of products coming from the GHG emissions reporting process, diversity of producers publishing GHG emission reports or the degree of participation in the production process of these reports);

·         GHG Inventories (periodicity, mandate and quality of reports, distribution and accessibility of reports, diversity of products coming from the GHG emissions reporting process);

·         Facility-level Information on GHG Emissions or Fuel Use (NGOs will select and examine two large facilities—one public, one private—to determine type of facility data available, collection and reporting regimes, management of data, dissemination of data)

2. Access to Participation in Decision Making Affecting Climate Change;

·         Sector or Regional Policy-making, Plans, Programs, or Strategies affecting climate change;

·         Activities Implemented Jointly or Joint Implementation (AIJ/JI).

These indicators attempt to answer the following questions:  Who is included as a participant?  Is there participation at each stage of the decision-making cycle?  Is information that is related to the substance and process of the decision accessible in written, electronic, or other form?

3. Efforts to Build the Capacity of the Public for Meaningful Participation in Climate-Change-Related Decision-Making.

·         The efforts and levels of investment on the part of governments to support understanding and participation in decision-making affecting climate change;

·         The ability of actors within the independent sector to support the public's exercise of access rights and the conditions under which they operate; and,

·         The sources of information supporting the general understanding of climate issues among the public.

The Results

The long-term goal of the project is to strengthen the capacity of NGOs, governments, and the private sector for implementation of the climate commitments, by engaging stakeholders in dialogue, providing information and analysis and broadening the constituency for participation in climate change issues.

Each partner organization will complete a national report, summarizing indicator survey results, by April 2002. A regional report will be compiled for distribution at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  In addition, each organization has begun crafting specific plans for maximizing outreach and utilizing the results locally.  For example, in Hungary preliminary plans include holding a media roundtable, disseminating results on the Internet and generating news articles.  In Bulgaria and Estonia, a seminar is being considered which would include survey respondents, media, and government representatives.  In all cases, participating NGOs hope to use both the results, and the process, to widen their ability to participate in developing climate protection policy.  However, it remains to be seen if this will lead to action plans to reduce emissions from specific sources.

 

Results of the project will be posted on the project website, http://www.rec.org/climate/index.html, as well as on partner NGO sites.

 

The Partners

Center for Energy Efficiency EnEffect, Sofia, Bulgaria, Ms. Valya Peeva, vpeeva@ennefect.bg

 

Stockholm Environment Institute-Tallinn Centre, Tallinn, Estonia, Mr. Tiit Kallaste, tiit@seit.ee

 

Hungarian National Society for Conservationists ( Madyar Termeszetvedők Szõvetsege), 
Budapest, Hungary, Mr. Robert Fidrich, fidusz@zpok.hu

 

Institute for Sustainable Development /ISD, Warzaw, Poland, Mr. Andrzej Kassenberg,

Ine@ine-isd.org.pl; Mr. Zbigniew Karaczum, karaczum@alpha.sggw.waw.pl

 

Terra III – CANCEE, Bucharest, Romania, Lavinia Andrei,  iandrei@pcnet.pcnet.ro

 

Energy Centre Bratislava, Slovakia, Dipl. Ing. Vladimir Hecl, office @ecbratislava.sk

 

Regional Environment Center, Budapest, Hungary, Ms. Zsusuzsa Ivanyi, izsuzsa@rec.org

 

World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA, Mr. Andrew Buchman, andrewb@wri.org        

 

 

For more information, see World Resources Institute Climate Notes at http://www.wri.org under publications.  Kevin A. Baumert and Elena Petkova, How Will the Clean Development Mechanism Ensure Transparency, Public Engagement, and Accountability? November 2000.  Elena Petkova and Kevin A. Baumert, Making Joint Implementation Work: Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe, November 2000.  Also see joint report with the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe: Andrew Buchman, Kevin Baumert, and Francesco Rizzo, Complying with the Kyoto Protocol Requirements:  Capacity Needs in Central and Eastern Europe, July 2001.

Send comments on this paper to Fran Irwin