Brazilian Access to Environmental Information Law
Brazil recently approved a law on access to environmental information (Law No.10.650, of April 16, 2003). The bill was introduced in Congress by representative Fabio Feldmann, with the support of representative Rita Camata, in 1998 and was drafted with the help of jurists and environmental technicians based on the experience of implementation of a resolution on access to environmental information passed by the São Paulo State Environmental Secretariat in 1996.

The law makes it mandatory that all public agencies involved with the implementation of the Brazilian National Environmental Policy Act, passed in 1981, produce when necessary, or make it public when solicited, all relevant information regarding environmental protection. The law also obliges all state agencies and those at the local level, when existent, to produce annual reports on air and water quality.

The law was based on the principles of Agenda 21, Rio Declaration, and the Aarhus Convention. Brazil was one of the first countries to pass such a specific law that deals with environmental information in detail. This makes it possible for Brazilian citizens to demand from public agencies all relevant information pertaining to their quality of life. It is also an instrument to promote environmental democracy in the country. Environmentalists and journalists in the country are celebrating this achievement since it grants an important tool for the implementation of environmental laws and rights and broadens the possibilities for the disclosure of relevant environmental information to the public.

NACEC Recommends Factual Record for Ontario Logging Submission
On November 12, 2002, the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America recommended to the CEC Council that a factual record be developed for the Ontario Logging submission (SEM-02-001). The submission alleges that Canada is failing to effectively enforce subsection 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations adopted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, in regard to logging in Ontario. Subs. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations makes it an offense to disturb, destroy or take a nest or egg of a migratory bird without a permit.

Sierra Legal Defense Fund, a Canadian environmental law NGO, filed the Ontario Logging submission with the CEC on February 6, 2002, on behalf of several Canadian and US environmental groups. The Submitters estimate that clear-cutting activity in 2001 destroyed over 85,000 migratory bird nests in central and northern Ontario forests. They allege that Environment Canada, through its Canadian Wildlife Service, has taken virtually no action to enforce subs. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations in regard to this logging activity.

Canada responded to the submission on April 25, 2002, and asserts that a factual record is not warranted because the Submitters never brought a complaint to the Canadian Wildlife Service regarding a specific violation of subs. 6(a) and because no specific, documented cases are mentioned in the submission. Canada denies that it has made a sweeping policy decision not to enforce subs. 6(a) with regard to logging operations. Canada claims that at this stage, prosecuting logging companies for violations of subs. 6(a) would devalue the offense, because Canada is still in the process of making the logging industry aware of its obligations under subs. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations through compliance promotion activities. However, Canada says it will take action, including prosecution if appropriate, if it becomes aware of specific violations of the regulations.

The Secretariat has determined that the submission, in light of Canada's response, leaves open central questions regarding whether Canada is failing to effectively enforce subs. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations in connection with logging in Ontario. The Secretariat therefore recommends that a factual record be developed to gather additional information regarding the effectiveness of Canadian Wildlife Service enforcement and compliance promotion activities in securing compliance with subs. 6(a) of the Migratory Birds Regulations during logging in the forest areas mentioned in the submission. The record would include information on federal involvement in the provincial forest management planning process for those areas; measures taken by forest companies and the Canadian Wildlife Service to identify nests prior to logging; measures taken to avoid nest destruction during logging; the effectiveness of those measures; Canadian Wildlife Service monitoring activities; Canadian Wildlife Service responses to suspected violations; and methods for establishing and balancing enforcement priorities for subs. 6(a).

The full text of the submission, Canada's response and the Secretariat's factual record recommendation are available on the CEC Web site, at http://www.cec.org/citizen.

Fostering Environmental Compliance in South America: Constraints and Opportunities
On February 10, 2003, the INECE Secretariat co-sponsored a panel discussion "Fostering Environmental Compliance in South America: Constraints and Opportunities" where a over fifty individuals heard presentations and participated in a round table discussion concerning environmental compliance and enforcement challenges facing South American countries. The gathering at the World Bank in Washington, D.C., also cosponsored by the World Bank Institute and the Government of the Netherlands, focused on the need to understand the limitations and opportunities that countries in South America face in safeguarding and improving environmental quality in the face of development pressures.

Discussion moderator and World Bank counsel Charles Di Leva acknowledged his organization's commitment to ensuring that its lending practices encourage good governance and adherence to the rule of law. Daniel Sabsay, Executive Director of FARN-Argentina, and Antonio Benjamin, EPC member and public prosecutor in Sao Paulo, Brazil, gave presentations that detailed the exceptional and irreplaceable biological resources that are threatened by unconstrained development. They also explained the ways the environment in their countries is threatened because of a culture of noncompliance, decentralized and overlapping governmental authority, corruption, and a lack of fiscal and technical resources dedicated to environmental protection. They provided an overview of recent legislative and regulatory developments in their countries as well as efforts to educate prosecutors and judges that may lead to improved environmental compliance and enforcement.

Durwood Zaelke, INECE Secretariat director, explained the critical role INECE can play in helping countries like Brazil and Argentina meet the challenges facing them. Zaelke cited the high stakes of a continued failure by the global community to address environmental degradation and explained INECE initiatives contained in its recently adopted Strategic Implementation Plan. He detailed the way INECE efforts, including those focused on delineating compliance and enforcement indicators, strengthening compliance and enforcement capacity, development of a South American regional network, and creation of an environmental prosecutors network, can help countries like Brazil and Argentina clear the compliance and enforcement hurdles facing them.

The discussion generated a series of recommendations, including:

• NGOs and academic institutions must support improved compliance and enforcement, develop grassroots constituencies, and, if necessary, bring pressure to force governments to take action and assume responsibility for environmental conditions;
• The very real risk of corruption requires that environmental laws and regulations incorporate transparent processes and generally minimize the amount of decision-making latitude given to individual officials and enforcement personnel;
• Industrialized countries must ensure, as with the EU model, that environmental compliance and enforcement commitments, based on both adequate laws and sufficient resources, are in place prior to the signing of multilateral trade or assistance agreements;
• The link between poverty, short term resource exploitation (sometimes called "development"), and environmental degradation should be exposed and articulated;
• Cooperative studies and showcase projects that illustrate compliance and enforcement successes should be utilized as models for other countries and regions with similar historic, cultural, and environmental backdrops.