• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Access to Justice Training
 

Access to Justice Training

on

  • 558 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
558
Views on SlideShare
481
Embed Views
77

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

4 Embeds 77

http://www.scoop.it 43
http://www.accessinitiative.org 22
http://www.earthtrends.wri.org 11
http://water.wri.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Main points: Facilities Level Information is a required case study for access to information. Examples include compliance reports and Pollution Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs). To add this case you will select the case type of “facilities level reporting” then choose the case details from the following list: Reports on environmental compliance PRTRs Reports from industry audits select “surface water quality” for case details.
  • Explain the benefits of access to justice. Use examples to illustrate. Main points: Access to justice evaluates the ability of aggrieved parties to go to a third party, a court, a supervisor, or some other person or forum with the authority to grant the relief requested or otherwise resolve the situation. Cases involving access to justice may be brought before a variety of forums, such as:  Informal appeal ( e.g. an individual or NGO makes an appeal to an Information Commissioner for refusal to provide information under a Freedom of Information Act) Administrative law (e.g. an individual or NGO brings a legal action against a government administration for lack of enforcement of environmental law or to review the decision of a government agency who failed to consult on an environmental impact assessment) Civil law (e.g. an individual or NGO sues an operator to stop polluting using the common law or civil law codes) Criminal law (e.g. an individual or NGO has the possibility to intervene in criminal proceedings or even to benefit from penalties the defendant has to pay)
  • Main Points: The goal of access to justice is to provide justice in environmental matters—making sure that the public is compensated for environmental damages, punishing non-compliance and promoting the rule of law. Values of Access to Justice include: Right to Access to Justice: Access to Justice is based on the belief that those who are affected by or interested in environmental concerns have a right seek justice.   Communicating Needs: Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.   Actively encourages involvement: Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate.   Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.  
  • What does the TAI assessment evaluate? (Quick introduction to the TAI methodology) Main points: The TAI assessment measures both LAW and PRACTICE at a national level. The law evaluation is completed with legal research and assesses the quality of the access rights as enshrined in the law. Capacity building evaluation looks at the legal requirements to provide capacity building on access rights. The case studies assess PRACTICE. Look at “on the ground” experiences with access. Case studies captures gaps in implementation (gaps between law and practice). It also identifies areas in which practice may be better than the legal framework.
  • Main points: Case studies capture the “on the ground” measurements of access rights. Access to Justice case studies measure access to justice for denial of access to information, denial of public participation, to remedy environmental harms and for non-compliance of laws/judicial orders. Reminder: There are no case studies designed to measure “capacity building”. Rather, capacity building questions are built into ALL of the case studies. Reminder: Two case studies should utilize the poverty sensitized guidelines for the indicators
  • The access to justice cases in more detail are: Denial of access to information(required). An access to information claim is one where the claimant was denied rights to information related to the environment or to environmental impacts, policies or decisions. Denial of pubic participation (required). A public participation claim is one where the claimant was denied rights of participation in decision-making relating to the environment e.g. failure to have a public hearing in relation to a large development that required an Environmental Impact Assessment or failure for a government institution to consult with relevant communities or failure to consult appropriately about the effect of activities on access to natural resources, lands or impact on livelihoods.   Environmental Damage Claim (required). An environmental harm claim may include past, ongoing or prospective harms to human health, property or the environment. An environmental harm claim can be an action taken by an individual, community or NGO to seek damages, compensation or to stop the activity that is causing harm.   Non-Compliance with laws or judicial orders (optional) you may select a non-compliance claim, but it is not required. A non compliance claim can be a breach of a law, regulation, standard or order by an individual, company or the government.  
  • Main Points: Poverty case studies are designed to capture the concerns of the poor. The Poverty Guidelines are to be used for all TAI assessments. The poverty sensitized indicators are to be conducted for 6 of the 18 case studies. The 4 Access to Justice case studies must include at least two (2) but no more than three (3) case studies.
  • Main points: Access to Justice requires 4 case studies Three are prescriptive and one is at the researchers discretion Of these 2 need to be relevant to the poor and employ the poverty sensitized instructions for the indicators
  • Main Points: The indicators for access to justice ask questions about: Is there a forum to hear the case? How broadly is standing interpreted? Does the forum have the capacity to deal with the claim? Are there efforts to train judges? If the decision enforced? Is it affordable? Is the decision fair? The LAW indicators for access to information measures: the presence and quality of guarantees, laws, provisions, regulations and rules whether access to justice for environmental matters is considered a general right or not.
  • Main Points: This is an example of an access to justice indicator. This is indicator #120. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
  • Main Points: This is an example of an access to justice indicator. This is indicator #120. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
  • Main Points: This is an example of an access to justice indicator. This is indicator #120. Trainer reads the full question and the values. Researchers are provided with more information than this—there are also research guidelines. It is VERY important that you read the guidelines as it explains, for instance what a “clear description” is. Guidelines for this question are: This indicator focuses on the timeliness with which the review and ultimate decision of the claim were made, rather than the process itself (which is covered by Indicator 119). The value for the indicator will be driven by whether the final outcome was obtained in time to resolve the principal concern of the parties bringing the claim. In assigning the value, consider whether: • The status quo changed adversely pending the outcome. • Whether the special needs and circumstances of the claim required a more timely decision. • Reaching a decision in the claim took longer than in similar claims. Definitions: "Minimize delays" means that the forum took actions to avoid delays, such as returning intermediate decisions or distributing documents in a timely manner. "Processing and reviewing" includes the steps taken by the forum towards issuing a final decision. These steps will vary among forums. Recommended Research Methods and Sources: 1. Interview: At least 2 individuals involved in the claim to determine: a. Any steps taken by the forum to minimize delays. b. Any special needs and circumstances of the claim that may have required a more timely decision. 2. Document review: Review reports of the proceedings to ascertain the duration of the claim.
  • Main points: THESE ARE GUIDELINES FOR ALL ACCESS TO JUSTICE CASES Case studies should: Reflect average/standard practice Have occurred in the last 5 years, and more recently if possible If more than one claim is selected, they should involve different types of claimants: NGOs, individuals, etc. For environmental damage claims only, the case should also clearly demonstrate the redress obtained and remedy granted.

Access to Justice Training Access to Justice Training Presentation Transcript

  • TAI Training: Access to Justice
  • Four Pillars Acce Justic Acce Info Public Par Capa Buildi
  • Access to JusticeAccess to Justice  Provides a forum for grievances  Ensures people are treated fairly  Creates accountability
  • Valuing Access to JusticeValuing Access to Justice
  • TAI Assessment StructureTAI Assessment Structure Constitutional Law Case Studies Access to Information: 27 indicators Public Participation: 31 indicators Access to Justice: 33 indicators 6 constitutional law indicators applied once per assessment + General Law 16 general law indicators applied once per assessment + Capacity Building: 12 capacity building indicators applied once per assessment
  • Access to Justice Case Studies Emergencies Air Quality Monitoring Facility Reporting Policy-Level Decision Regulatory-Level Decision Project-Level Decision Access to Information Public Participation Environmental Harm Water Quality Monitoring State of Enviro Reports Non- Compliance Access to Justice Access to Informatio n Public Participation
  • Access to Justice Case Studies
  • Poverty Case StudiesPoverty Case Studies Captures the concerns of the poor Two (2) case studies must use the poverty indictors Poverty-sensitized indicators
  • Number of Case StudiesNumber of Case Studies Prescriptive Case Types Case Types at Researchers’ Discretion Total Minimum Cases Access to Information 4 4 8 Public Participation 3 3 6 Access to Justice 3 1 4 TOTALS 10 8 18
  • Access to Justice IndicatorsAccess to Justice Indicators Does the forum have the capacity to deal with the claim? Are there provisions, regulations or rules? Is it affordable? Is the decision timely? Is there a forum? Is the forum impartial? How broadly is standing interpreted?
  • Valuing Indicators: LawValuing Indicators: Law 96. To what extent does the law enable a party to seek review or appeal of selected claim type to an independent body with the power to reverse a decision?
  • Valuing Indicators: EffortValuing Indicators: Effort 120. To what extent did the forum minimize delays in processing and reviewing the claim and in issuing a decision?
  • Valuing Indicators: EffectivenessValuing Indicators: Effectiveness 129. To what extent was the forum decision implemented in the selected case?
  • Choosing Priority Sectors Economically Significant • Significant contributor to GDP • Large employer • Unique to your country Environmentally or Socially Significant Representative • Significant environmental impacts • Significant health impacts • Impact vulnerable populations • Should reflect average practice • If it is NOT an average case, then this must be noted in the assessment
  • Sample Priority Sectors IMPORTANT SECTORS  Water and sanitation  Extractive Industries  Biodiversity  Forestry  Agriculture  Poverty  Electricity  Tourism  Women  Manufacturing  Services  Children and Youth  Government  Fisheries  Minorities  Chemicals  Transport  Health  Toxics  Indigenous Peoples  Trade  Globalization  Genetically Modified Organisms  Illegal immigrants
  • Guidelines for Case Selection CASE STUDIES SHOULD BE Representative Recent ADDITIONAL CASE STUDIES SHOULD Clearly show redress and remedy Involve different types of claimants For all access to justice case studies: For environmental damage claims, case should: