The Rights to Information, Participation, and Justice: The Importance of a Voice

The democratic rights of the poor and their capacity to participate in environmental decisions affecting their livelihoods are central to their ability to escape poverty. Yet despite their greater reliance on natural resources to earn their livelihoods, the poor have less say than their richer counterparts in how environmental decisions are made.

In much of the developing world the policies, practices, and institutions of political life serve to exclude a majority of citizens 71 from full participation in public decision-making—especially the poor and socially marginalized. This is true even in many nations that are nominally democratic. Democratic governance is more than merely casting a ballot in periodic elections. It means having opportunities beyond the ballot box to make one’s voice heard, including participation in public hearings, review of official documents, and involvement in official processes, such as the preparation of environmental impact assessments. Full democratic engagement also means having opportunities not just to consult on projects already slated for implementation but also to play a role in shaping the design of public policies, in agendasetting and establishing priorities for public policy, and in monitoring ongoing projects to ensure that they produce the benefits originally anticipated. (See Figure 3.3.)

These principles of democratic empowerment in the arena of environmental decisions were articulated over a decade ago at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, adopted by 178 nations at the close of the Earth Summit, put forth a ground-breaking proposition: that every person should have access to information about the environment, opportunities to participate in decision-making processes affecting the environment, and access to redress and remedy—that is, access to justice—to protect their rights to information and participation and to challenge decisions that do not take their interests into account. These three rights—the rights to information, participation, and redress—are often referred to as the Access Principles. (See Box 3.3)

In 2002, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development, governments reaffirmed their commitment to Principle 10 and the Access Principles. At the same time, a coalition of governments, civil society organizations, and international institutions formed the Partnership for Principle 10 to help implement these principles at the national and local levels. Unfortunately, the record of most nations in conferring these basic rights is still far from perfect. A 2001 assessment of nine nations—both rich and poor—found a variety of systemic weaknesses. For example, many nations have improved their laws granting public access to government data and analysis, but implementation of these laws is weak. Information on water or air quality that average citizens can understand and use is often hard to find, and documents about the environmental effects of development projects are frequently not made available in a timely manner (Petkova et al. 2002:1-8).

Even if information is made available, the public’s ability to participate in resource-related decisions such as timber harvesting or the siting of mines is still limited. Although the process of preparing and publicly airing environmental impact assessments has greatly increased in the last two decades, the public’s involvement still tends to be in the later stages, after many major decisions have already been made. And even when public comment is invited, many people do not have the capacity or time to take advantage of the opportunity. Performance on the Access Principles is weakest when it comes to access of ordinary citizens to redress. The ability of local people to appeal decisions they don’t agree with is often constrained by obstacles of cost, lack of clarity about procedures for appeal, and also the lack of “standing” as a legally recognized party with a legitimate interest in the case (WRI et al. 2003:48-61).

These access deficits are not restricted to the poor, but the poor tend to suffer them more acutely. Indeed, most of the world’s poor are excluded from interacting fully within the political processes of their country—and environmental decisions are decidedly political in many cases. They are held back by lack of education and literacy, by deficits of information and awareness, and by a lack of understanding of their rights and how to exercise them. Even where the poor are aware of their rights, other barriers may prevent them from becoming involved. People who are barely managing to eke out a subsistence livelihood often cannot afford the luxury of devoting time and resources to participation or even information-gathering. And they may be even less able to pursue a legal challenge to decisions with which they disagree, given the expense and time burden. (See Figure 3.4.)

The sections below detail some of the ways in which the poor are particularly affected by deficits in their rights to information, participation, and justice. Also discussed are some of the successful steps that have been taken to address these shortcomings.
(See Box 3.3.)

Access to Information

Information for Livelihood Choices

The rural poor face a keen need for information directly relevant to their livelihoods—information such as market prices for their crops, alternative cropping or pest control options, the availability of government assistance or training programs, or opportunities for developing new products or markets for environmental goods, from local crafts to ecotourism. Agriculture-related information is often one of the most immediate needs, since small-scale agriculture is so important to household incomes in rural areas. Information on current crop prices, fertilizer and pesticide costs, and the availability of improved seeds and low-cost improvements in farm technology can help guide the purchases of farm inputs and equipment, or help farmers successfully obtain credit.

Without information of this type, poor families find it harder to take advantage of new opportunities for generating income and increasing their assets. Numerous organizations, from multilateral agencies to local NGOs, are trying to improve access to livelihood-related information. One such effort is the farmer field schools developed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as part of an Integrated Pest Management project in Indonesia. Using a participatory learning approach aimed at incorporating local knowledge and experience, these farmer field schools are yielding lessons that are being applied to information activities on sustainable livelihoods in other sectors, such as community forestry (Chapman et al. 2003:5).

Information for Public Accountability

Access to information on laws, mandated government services, and government expenses is fundamental for poor people to hold governments accountable for their performance. Unless citizens can find out what governments are doing and how they spend their funds, governments have little incentive to improve performance, deliver on their promises, or even provide basic services at adequate levels.

In Bangalore, India, citizen groups conducted surveys of municipal government performance and used the information to create “report cards” on the quality and efficiency of services such as water, transport, electricity, and police, and to press for reforms. In Rajasthan, India, citizen efforts to gain access to information on government spending and employment rolls led to exposure of local corruption, initiation of corrective action, and prompted consideration of a national right-to-information law. In Argentina, citizens can access a website—audited by a coalition of 15 NGOs—to find easily understandable information on public expenditures across a variety of government programs (Narayan 2002:32).

In Francophone Africa, cooperatively produced radio programming provides listeners of 48 rural radio stations in 10 countries with access to information on laws, legal systems, and justice. Developed during a workshop on law in Senegal, an initial radio program featured lawyers from six West African countries and provided information on land rights, women’s rights in marriage, and other legal matters. Following enthusiastic listener response, the producers developed a series of subsequent broadcasts on related legal issues, such as divorce, inheritance, access to justice, and conflict resolution (Chapman et al. 2003:22).

Language Barriers to Information Access

In many developing countries, language is the most important vehicle for excluding the poor and socially marginalized groups from access to information (Sibanda 2000:9-10). For the mature democracies of Europe, Asia, North America, and Oceania, the language of government is an indigenous language or a language in which the vast majority of ordinary citizens are fluent. However, across the developing world, a significant proportion of the population typically does not use or understand the language of government, which often is a European language—French, English, or Spanish—imposed during the colonial era. It is expensive to produce multiple versions of official documents in indigenous as well as colonial languages, and the process of designating which indigenous languages are to be used in official documents can aggravate existing ethnic rivalries. But the alternative is continued high costs in social exclusion and political instability. (See Figure 3.5.)

Choice of Information Technologies

Whether the rural poor have adequate access to information for environmental decision-making is not only a function of the quality and quantity of information supplied. It also depends on whether the delivery technologies are appropriate for the target audience. Different groups may have different information needs and preferences for information delivery, and efforts to increase the poor’s information access are most effective when they involve these groups in decisions about the information technologies to be used. For instance, in most developing countries radio and television remain much more widely accessible than the Internet. Technologies such as the wind-up radio make information dissemination possible in communities without electricity or access to batteries (Chapman et al. 2003:19-20).

Nonetheless, experience with pilot efforts indicates that it is possible to reach large numbers of people in developing countries with electronic sources of information. In the Philippines, a pilot project in the barangays (townships) on the island of Mindanao is using modern communications technologies to improve local access to information on topics such as agriculture, rural enterprise development, education, and health. The project features multipurpose community telecenters with telephone and Internet access (Chapman et al. 2003:17-18). The challenge remains to apply these pilot approaches more widely in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as well.

Equitable Access to Information

Despite new technological capacity for broad-based information dissemination, evidence suggests that if access to information is not universal, growing supplies of information may simply serve to exacerbate existing social, economic, and political inequalities. Historically, information on agriculture-based livelihoods in developing countries was viewed as a global public good that should be made available at no charge to all interested parties. More recently, donor agencies have emphasized private-sector provision of agricultural extension information, which can involve cost recovery and user fees that the poorest farmers cannot afford to pay (Chapman et al. 2003:vii). Involving the poor in decisions about who should pay for information services and how the sustainability of information services can be ensured is vital to ensuring the poor have access to such information.

Demand-Driven, Location-Specific Information

Rural producers in developing countries value locally generated, locally specific information much more than general information. Because farmers and fishers are unlikely to adopt new practices without substantial discussion of local examples, improved access to information is most effective when the information is focused on local conditions and local processing and marketing systems. Modern communications technologies such as the Internet and teleconferencing can enable rural farmers and fishers to discuss specific local problems with technical specialists based outside their area.

In India, the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation is using innovative information technologies in communitymanaged “e-villages” to respond to the information needs of local groups. For example, weather forecasts and information on wave height are being routed to fishers in the village of Veerampattinam. Such initiatives can also stimulate two-way information flow between villages and researchers, so that farmers and fishers can contribute their specialized knowledge to enrich national and international information systems (Chapman et al. 2003:19).

Inclusion of Women and Socially Marginalized Groups

In Swaminathan’s e-villages, information centers are run mainly by semi-literate women and by students, with the aim of empowering them through their roles as information managers. By specifically targeting women and marginalized groups in knowledge management, initiatives to enhance the poor’s access to information can also promote social equity (Chapman et al. 2003:19).

Access to Participation

Decision-Making About Livelihood Choices

Direct involvement in institutional processes that affect their livelihoods, such as determining the course of agricultural research, is crucial for poor farmers. Often, there is no route for their input, but that does not have to be so. The West African Rice Development Agency uses participatory methods to involve farmers in selecting which new rice varieties should be developed, thus giving poor farmers an opportunity to share information on their preferences and needs with rice breeders (Chapman et al. 2003:20).

Participation in Broader Policy Processes

In many poor countries, poor people have participated in broader development initiatives dealing with poverty and poverty reduction. Citizen participation has been part of the process of crafting national poverty-reduction strategies in several countries, such as Bolivia, Kenya, and Uganda. The poor have also participated in creating citywide strategies for poverty reduction in approximately 80 cities around the world, including Cali, Colombia; Johannesburg, South Africa; Kampala, Uganda; and Haiphong, Vietnam (Narayan 2002:46, 70).

Citizen involvement is a central element in so-called “participatory poverty assessments”—an important tool to inform national policies and budgets. In several countries, participatory approaches to poverty assessments provided insights that had not been obvious from official survey data. In Uganda, for example, citizen participation led to increased investment in water supply and more flexible budget allocations allowing districts to respond to local needs. In Vietnam, people’s participation led to the targeting of urban as well as rural poverty, steps to address the ethnic and gender dimensions of poverty, and the piloting of “citizen report cards” on the delivery of basic services (Narayan 2002:38).

Participation in Planning and Budgeting

Pioneered by the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, participatory budgeting processes enable the poor to have more say in how government resources are distributed. In participatory budgeting, citizen meetings generate information about people’s priorities for government budget allocations, which are then aggregated into neighborhood-level priorities. In Brazil, more than $260 million was allocated between 1996 and 1998 to projects selected by participants in citizen meetings, the vast majority of which addressed needs in poorer, underserved districts. As of 2003, some 180 municipalities in Brazil were engaged in some form of participatory budgeting processes (Serageldin et al. 2003:8-9).

Inclusion of Women and Marginalized Groups

In many countries, remedying deep, long-standing social inequality necessarily entails enacting laws requiring the inclusion of previously excluded groups. One example of such an initiative comes from Bolivia, where the Law on Popular Participation provides for the participation of indigenous people’s organizations in municipal decision-making. Under this law, which is meant to improve local governance and aid poverty-reduction efforts, “community vigilance committees” are empowered to investigate municipal decisions. These citizen committees even have the power to halt the distribution of central government funds to local governments if they determine that planning and expenditures are not in line with community demands (Narayan 2002:42-43). In India, it took a constitutional amendment mandating that women must make up at least a third of the councilors in panchayats (village-level councils) to create real opportunities for women’s voices to be heard in municipal leadership.

Access to Justice

Research shows that the poor are less likely to access the legal system to secure or enforce their rights to use natural resources. A study of seven countries in Africa and Asia found that poor communities are often reluctant to pursue legal claims based on their environmental grievances. In general, economically disadvantaged groups lacked familiarity with legal institutions as well as the necessary financial resources to use legal remedies effectively (Boyle and Anderson 1996, cited in ESRC/GECP 2001:18). Intimidation by local elites and government officials can also make the poor and others of low social status hesitant to assert their right to live in an environment adequate for their health and well-being. For the poor who lack formal, legally recognized tenure to their land and natural resources, the threat of retribution is especially chilling.

Securing and Enforcing Property Rights

Clearly defined property rights, and confidence that these rights can be efficiently defended against interlopers, are fundamental to governance systems built on the rule of law. As mentioned earlier, appropriate property rights regimes are also central to encouraging the poor to invest in their land or in resource management in ways that bring economic development and poverty reduction. However, in many developing economies, corruption, excessive regulation, and complicated property registration procedures significantly burden citizens, especially the poor.

In Guayaquil, Ecuador, for example, it has been three decades since the passage of land reform laws, and most households are aware of their property rights and the importance of securing title to land. But the majority of these poor households are incapable of navigating the legal labyrinth—including long delays and high costs—surrounding the land titling process. In theory, the process costs about $350, or as much as three months of a typical worker’s salary. In practice, the actual cost is closer to $750—a prohibitive sum for most poor families (Moser 2004:42-44). A similar situation exists in Peru, where land registration processes to secure property rights requires land holders to engage with 14 different agencies involved in conferring a single title (Narayan 2002:54).

In several countries, poor people’s associations and cooperatives are working with local authorities and financial institutions to address the need for secure land tenure rights and housing. In Mumbai, India, a slum-dwellers’ organization has been able to acquire land, housing, and basic infrastructure services for its members. In the Philippines, a scavengers’ association whose members live on a 15-hectare municipal dump in Quezon City has helped mobilize member savings to acquire legal rights to land through land purchase. And in Guatemala, 50,000 squatters have formed cooperatives, acquired land through legal means, and are now repaying long-term loans (Narayan 2002:66). Meanwhile, Ghana’s landregistration law specifically provides for registration of customary land rights, and pilot projects are now underway to build capacity among traditional-land administrators to improve record-keeping and land registries (Bruce 2005).

Procedural Injustice

The poor typically are most affected by procedural injustices in the legal and court systems. For instance, the poor are least able to afford the costs imposed by long delays in court proceedings. Also, the poor are more likely to be disadvantaged by language barriers in the legal system, such as court documents or hearings in languages not widely spoken by the rural poor (Girishankar et al. 2002:289).

Mechanisms for Alternative Dispute Resolution

For poor people living in remote rural areas, the existence of decentralized local processes for resolving disputes may make the difference in their ability to secure or enforce their rights. However, if such decentralized alternatives are poorly executed, they can end up disadvantaging the poor by reinforcing the dominance of local elites and incorporating local norms that discriminate against women, children, and other socially marginalized groups (Girishankar et al. 2002:289).

Fair Permitting and Licensing

A key element of access to economic justice for the poor is the ability to obtain permits and licenses for small business enterprises via processes that are transparent, fair, and efficient. The state of affairs in many developing countries departs considerably from this norm. In Zimbabwe, for instance, red tape and expensive licensing fees constrain the ability of poor communities to launch small businesses based on wildlife tourism or other products and services. Registration of a tourist company in Zimbabwe takes more than a year and costs about US$14,000 to obtain needed certificates and guarantees (Narayan 2002:55).

In Lima, Peru, registering a small garment workshop employing a single owner-operator takes on average 289 days and costs in excess of US$1,200, or more than 30 times the monthly minimum wage. In Indonesia, the official license fees for registering a small business are about US$400, but the actual costs often are typically triple that amount (Narayan 2002:54-55). (See Figure 3.6.)

Fortunately, some state and local governments are starting to make it easier for small entrepreneurs to secure their rights to operate. In Bali, one municipality introduced “one-stop shops” for business licenses and permits. This has not only helped businesses obtain licenses more efficiently but has also augmented government tax revenues by 75 percent. In India the government of the state of Gujarat removed the requirement that gum collectors—virtually all of them poor women—must sell gum at artificially low prices to a handful of governmentselected buyers (Narayan 2002:56).

As the numerous examples cited above show, progress in empowering the poor in their rights to information, participation, and justice can be made. Such progress is central to giving the poor the political and business tools to take advantage of their nature-based assets and to participate in rural commerce that leads to sustainable economic progress—the route out of poverty