Why does "access" matter? Access to environmental information is important because an informed public is more alert to problems, more apt to challenge assumptions of government or corporate decision-makers, more capable of discussing issues, and more likely to organize for social and political change. Access to decision-making matters because people want and need to shape the choices that affect their well-being -- the quality of the air they breathe, the purity of the water they drink, the aesthetics of their neighborhood, the availability of forests that are a source of fuel or food, the wildness of their favorite place to hike. When people have access to justice -- where independent courts supply remedy and redress free from politics -- there is greater accountability for decisions that affect the environment.

In 2001-2002, a global coalition of 25 civil society groups called the Access Initiative measured the public's ability to participate in decisions about the environment. For this pilot assessment, the Access Initiative focused on laws and public experiences in nine countries: Chile, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and the United States. These countries vary in terms of income levels, development paths, literacy rates, natural resource dependency, and cultural and political traditions. The findings, summarized here, give a good indication of public access to environmental decision-making around the world.

The Access Initiative framed its assessment around the three elements of Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, which asserts that access to information, to the decision-making process, and to a system of justice are all essential components of a comprehensive system of public participation. Assessment teams in each of the pilot test countries used a common methodology, including review of planning documents, legislation, and court cases; interviews with government officials and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); questionnaires; requests for information; and media analysis (see Box 3.1 Measuring access). Using this material, the assessment teams examined how well public authorities provide:

1. Access to environmental information. Public information is one of the cornerstones of sustainable development strategies. Access to environmental information enables the public to make informed personal choices, contributes to the protection of the environment, and encourages improved environmental performance by industry.

The Access Initiative focused on access to four critical types of environmental information:

• Information about day-to-day environmental quality, such as air and water quality, which helps people decide whether children should play outside, whether to drink water from the tap, or whether to take other actions to lessen environmental impacts on their health.

• Information about environmental trends over time, which creates a more enlightened public -- one that is better able to connect its actions to environmental consequences, more likely to support policies that minimize environmental harm, and more able to hold decision-makers accountable.

• Information about pollution from industrial facilities, which empowers NGOs, investors, neighbors, and consumers to press for responsible corporate citizenship

• Information about emergency situations and risks, which enables people to protect their health or environment during events such as a cholera outbreak or a fire at an industrial plant.

These categories represent a minimum standard for public authorities to use in providing environmental information.

Access Initiative researchers looked at specific cases of government practice and industrial reporting. They rated governments on how well they generate and manage environmental information and on how easily citizens can obtain comprehensive information in a timely manner, usable format, and appropriate language. They did not specifically rate the accuracy of the information, but stressed the efforts made to collect and disseminate it. For example, in examining the response to a fire at a chemical factory in Viña del Mar, Chile in 2000, the Access Initiative found that public authorities provided neighboring communities information that was incomplete and too late to be useful. Accordingly, the Viña del Mar case rated "low" for access to information. The assessment teams also examined the framework of laws and regulations to determine each country's commitment to support people's access to environmental information through clearly defined and enforceable rights.

2. Access to decision-making affecting the environment. To get an indication of public participation in practice, the Access Initiative evaluated several specific kinds of decisions with environmental impacts and the degree to which a broad set of stakeholders or interested groups were able to participate early, easily, and substantively in each kind. Researchers examined how much opportunity the public has to influence:

• National policies and plans, including broad environmental and economic policies, such as South Africa's water management policy, or Thailand's national provisions for siting power plants.

• Provincial and local policies and plans, such as regional development plans in Hungary, and other sub-national decisions that affect natural resources

• The design of environmentally significant projects, such as the licensing of a power plant in the United States, or approval of a discharge permit at a wastewater plant in Uganda.

"Scores given for each of these categories were based on when and how easily people could participate, and the degree to which authorities took public feedback into account. For example, researchers looked at when, how, and who was notified about pending decisions and opportunities for input such as public hearings or comment periods. They also looked for the presence of laws and regulations ensuring people's rights to participate in environmental decisions.

3. Access to justice and remedy. The Access Initiative evaluated whether individuals and organizations can seek legal remedy and redress when there is a failure to provide information or involve the public in decisions as required by law, or when citizens wish to dispute a decision or have it independently reviewed. Researchers scored countries on indicators of:

• Enforceable rights and legal standing, particularly the legal guarantees and provisions for access to information and participation that enable individuals and organizations to build a legal case. Just as important is the matter of "legal standing," or the eligibility to defend one's rights in court, to file a suit, or post a grievance.

• A process for review of disputed plans and policies, including the presence of an independent, impartial, and ably administered judiciary, and the availability of review mechanisms in specific decisions such as the awarding of timber or mining concessions.

Access Initiative research teams also looked at practical considerations that can limit access to justice, such as the affordability of judicial and administrative services and legal help, or the time required for an appeal process.

The Access Initiative findings provide more than just a picture of the state of environmental democracy in individual countries. The results reveal common accomplishments and failures across countries, pointing to the challenges that face most nations as they try to create effective national systems of access for their citizens.