PROJECTS

Access to information and public participation
 in decisionmaking in Kazakhstan

Access to information

PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGICAL MEDIA INTRODUCED THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS FOR INFORMATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

In October 2000 Kazakhstan ratified Orhus Convention on access to ecological information, public participation in decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters.

Article 5 of Kazakhstan’s Environmental Protection Law postulates the right for favorable environmental conditions. Article 5, also, stipulates that citizens have the right “to demand accurate information about environmental conditions and measures undertaken to improve such conditions”.

The right to access accurate ecological information can be implemented by sending written inquires to governmental entities responsible for carrying out environmental control functions (appropriate Ministries, their territorial departments and branches) or directly to administrative bodies of an appropriate production facility responsible for particular types of environmental pollution. Usually written inquires are prepared in two copies and registered. Legislative acts provide for 1 month turnaround time.

In 1999 information related to environmental conditions was accessible (data published in annual reports and quarterly bulletins). Within last several years the situation has deteriorated. Appropriate government entities do not have adequate means to publish the same amount of annual reports and quarterly bulletins. New sources of information have been launched (for example, Environmental Protection Ministry web site, Parliament’s site features only legislative review schedule but does not provide drafts of documents etc.).

In reality people do not have the right to access environmental information. There are no mechanisms supporting implementation of the right to access relevant data.

Journalists representing various printed and broadcasting media approach appropriate government agencies to get a particular number for an article or a TV show, however, they are often denied access to data or they are requested to send written inquiries. Early journalists got responses directly over the phone avoiding unnecessary “red tape”. Often a response to a journalist or an NGO representative depends on a particular official and his/her abilities. Nowadays one might hope for more in terms of abilities of individual officials. Moreover, usually officials do not face any consequences for denying access to information despite the fact that legislative acts provide for certain follow-up mechanisms. Up till now there have been just a handful of cases in which journalists and editorial boards took legal actions as a consequence of being denied access to information.

In accordance with data provided by “Adil Soz” International Freedom of Speech Protection Foundation, in 2002 in Kazakhstan 266 media agencies were denied information and accreditation.
Government officials confirm the fact that relations between government agencies and the media are quite far away from reaching mutual understanding. Mr. Ardak Doszhan, Vice-Minister of the Ministry of culture, information and public accord referred to this situation at the second Congress of Kazakhstan’s journalists held in Turkestan in February 2003.
Officials have an array of means to avoid providing requested information. For example, if certain officials do not want to share complete and accurate data in a month’s time they can send a perfunctory response containing a quote from a certain official publication having no relation to the current situation.

Greenwomen Association journalists approached Gosstandard (The State Standardization Agency) to clarify the situation related to genetically modified organisms. The Agency’s representatives responded saying that they did not have any information on the subject. After this information had been published in “Vremya” newspaper its editor got an accusatory call from Gosstandard representatives demanding the article to be retracted because “the newspaper had portrayed a government entity in an unfavorable light”. Gosstandard’s officials presented the following arguments: “Yes, we do not have GMOs-related data, but we are facing significant difficulties. We can not perform even basic tests. We do not have enough reagents, financial resources, staff etc.” The official who did not present information to the journalist was reprimanded for poor cooperation with the media. This situation highlights the fact that officials are concerned about their image and not about the lack of GMOs-related information. In other words, officials wanted to insist on receiving an official inquiry addressed to Gosstandard only to follow-up within a month with a perfunctory response.

Usually an official response contains 90% positive and 10% negative data. Every Ministry and Agency tries its best to defend its public image. They are not interested in concerns raised by NGOs, media or particular representatives of the general public regarding a certain environmental issue. The key point is to secure limited agency-specific interests.

Every Ministry has a press service. In most cases, these press services present information having some value to journalists. However, very rarely competent officials handle public relations. Usually somebody’s good friends or relatives cover this area of operations. In many instances officials have only vague understanding of NGOs and their functions, hence there seems to be no need to respond to letters and inquires coming from NGOs. Widespread corruption also hinders enforcement of the right on adequate ecological information. Some officials try to label ecological information as “secret” or “commercially valuable” and demand payment for such data.

Every official realizes that if media representatives do not get adequate information, they have the right to comment on the situation through their respective media outlets. An NGO representative has a lot less chances to obtain adequate information and capture attention of respective officials, since denying the information will have no consequences.

Official inquiries represent a perfect way for covering up requested information. In many instances, responses do not contain any reference to requested data. For example, Greenwomen Association requested information from several environmental protection bodies regarding heavy metals concentrations in the atmosphere of Almaty. Official responses denied the very fact of pollution. At the same time other sources indicate that atmosphere of Almaty is characterized by higher pollution levels than atmosphere of any other city in Kazakhstan.

Often official responses contain recommendations to request information from other agencies. Correspondence gets delayed, numbers of supposedly concerned agencies multiply, mounting “red tape” devastates and leaves no chances for obtaining required data.

A totally different scenario emerges when a certain environmental protection body or statistics agency conducts research projects in the framework of an international grant agreement. Usually international organizations require mandatory dissemination of information and consultations with the general public. Findings of these research projects are distributed among the general public, are available and can be obtained in response to a specific inquiry

Foreign funds enable National Statistics Agency to publish reports, produce collections of research findings, support a multi-industry web site. Though, some statistical data is available only on a “for fee” basis.

For many government agencies, including Ministries of health care, ecology and agriculture distribution of information is a high-cost budget item, which they can not afford.

Only international organizations and private enterprises can afford on-going media coverage facilitated by corporate press services. They organize regular press conferences, send out press releases, support web sites, hire public relations staff and regularly respond to incoming inquires.

Difficulties related to presentation of information represent the root cause of many conflicts between NGOs and government agencies.

Ways for more effective interaction between NGOs and the media represent another hot topic of on-going debates in Kazakhstan. Based on our own experience we believe that ecological information for NGOs should serve the following purposes:

- meet ecological NGOs’ needs with respect to environmental information;
- enable functioning of the system ensuring circulation of information from Environmental Protection Ministry (and other Ministries) to NGOs and vice versa – from NGOs to the Ministries;
- present adapted and objective information accessible to every NGO regardless of the NGO size and the source of information.

It is very important to make sure that environmental protection bodies and, primarily, Environmental Protection Ministry have defined sets of documents and information which should be accessible to NGOs at all times. All open information should be available to NGOs at the same time and in the same manner as it is available to representatives of the Ministries.

In most countries where the law guarantees access to information specially dedicated officials ensure timely dissemination of information. Recently a dedicated staff member has been identified in Kazakhstan’s Environmental Protection Ministry to support distribution of information, however, this has not had any positive impact on the flow of information. Current situation can be attributed to the influence of several factors, including relocation of the Ministry to Astana, staff rotation, low professional level of the staff member charged with distribution of information.

This issue can be addressed, for example, through establishment of a special library devoted to distribution of information. Also, it is necessary to establish a network of regional bureaus or information desks responsible for dissemination of information throughout Kazakhstan.

The network of regional bureaus can augment existing communication channels, particularly, direct contacts between government officials and NGO representatives. Experience indicates that direct contacts currently represent the most effective form of cooperation between NGOs and Environmental Protection Ministry.


Participation in policy-making and legislative processes

From the previous totalitarian system we inherited the lack of a mandatory procedure allowing all parties concerned to express opinions regarding proposed policies/laws/rules. Political climate still does not provide for development of the legal structure supporting public participation in these processes. Currently we need a system ensuring public participation at early stages of development of a project, a policy or a law.

In some Eastern European countries laws have been adopted defining public participation norms through strategic assessment procedure and environmental impact assessment procedure, as well as, through other mechanisms including single solution procedure (IPPC), emergency control security programs, GMOs-related resolution procedures.

In Kazakhstan within last several years general public was to some extent involved in policy development and legislative processes. The most active form of involvement is represented by soliciting NGO commentaries regarding drafts of legislative acts and strategic documents (policies/laws/rules). For example, in the course of discussions related to Kazakhstan’s Forestry Code, NGOs proposed a number of comments. Many of NGOs-initiated amendments were taken into consideration, some others were rejected. In general, public participation was ensured following Orhus Convention provisions.

Environmental Protection Ministry’s actions undertaken in 2000 to express the country’s official position in the course of discussions related to Orhus Convention represent a vivid example of public participation. A number of public consultations were held. Information about the Convention and projects related to its implementation was widely distributed. In addition to open public discussions, there is also a tradition of “limited public consultations”. For example, in the course of development of the project on persistent organic pollutants a large scale information campaign was organized involving NGOs and the media. Also, introductory “roundtables” and seminars were organized for the general public to develop its goals and objectives related to liquidation of persistent organic pollutants and implementation of the Stockholm Convention. Moreover, a representative of Greenwomen Association serves on POPs Project management Committee (Minister of Environmental Protection chairs the Committee). In a similar project implemented in Russia there are no NGO representatives serving on Project Management Committee.

However, this mechanism lacks a defined NGO selection procedure for participation in consultations, which makes certain aspects vague and unclear to participating NGOs.

NGOs have no effective means for participation in legislative processes at the parliamentary level.

<< BACK :: FORWARD >>