In the month of the football World Cup under way in Russia, we tried to understand which countries are most committed to environmental democracy. Don't worry — Italy is absent here too.
While the Fifa World Cup – the most important international football competition – is under way in Russia, we tried to imagine who might win the world championship of environmental standards compliance, drawing up a ranking of the countries most committed to nature conservation and citizen involvement in decisions that have an impact on the environment. Whereas in football the top three nations in the world are Germany, Brazil and Belgium respectively, the Baltic region dominates the index based on laws enacted to protect what is defined as "environmental democracy". At the top of the ranking we find two very sparsely populated states that are home to roughly three and two million inhabitants respectively – more or less the same number of people who live in Rome.
Speaking of Italy, our country has not qualified for this World Cup either, which for us is far more important.
People are too often excluded from decision-making processes concerning the transformation and exploitation of the environment in which they live. This is usually due to weak laws that limit public access to information, do not allow citizens to participate actively in decisions, and do not guarantee justice when environmental damage is caused.
Read also: Russia is accused of exterminating stray dogs ahead of the World Cup
The goal of environmental democracy is to preserve the health of communities and their environment, an objective founded on the principle that the active participation of citizens ensures the fair use of environmental resources. Environmental democracy thus provides a standard for how decisions should be made and is based on three fundamental rights: the ability of people to freely access information on environmental resources and problems, to participate meaningfully in decision-making, and to seek enforcement of environmental laws or compensation for damages.
To enable global comparisons and share best practices, the Environmental democracy index (Edi) was developed, an index that evaluates these parameters through a set of internationally recognised guidelines drawn up by the United Nations Environment Programme (Un Environment).
The ranking produced using the index evaluates 70 nations. Playing on the parallel with the football World Cup, we took the top 32 nations in the Edi ranking (the same number as the teams participating in the football tournament) and divided them into groups, setting them against one another. There are plenty of surprises: Europe as a whole puts in a good showing; numerous American and African nations also appear in the upper part of the ranking, while Asia fares less well.
Group A features Japan, Chile, Brazil and Bulgaria, occupying thirty-second, twenty-fourth, sixteenth and seventh place respectively in the Edi ranking. Brazil and Bulgaria advance from the group: the South American nation scored 1.80 and performed particularly well on access to information. Brazilian law establishes a right of access to environment-related information upon request and requires government authorities to make such information publicly available. Bulgaria achieved an overall score of 2.10 and, also thanks to its ratification of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, has proved to be a transparent nation ready to share environmental information with its citizens.
Participants: Japan, Chile, Brazil and Bulgaria.
Advancing to the round of sixteen: Brazil and Bulgaria
Group B is made up of Costa Rica, Cameroon, Indonesia and Hungary, found at thirty-first, twenty-third, fifteenth and sixth place in the Edi ranking. It is therefore Indonesia and Hungary who advance to the round of sixteen with scores of 1.80 and 2.12. Indonesia guarantees its citizens good access to information and the right to participate in a wide range of environmental decisions, but is less virtuous when it comes to guaranteeing justice in cases of violations. In Hungary, most laws require government agencies to give citizens the opportunity to participate actively in decisions on environmental matters during the decision-making process.
Participants: Costa Rica, Cameroon, Indonesia and Hungary
Advancing to the round of sixteen: Indonesia and Hungary
The four nations in Group C – Venezuela, Macedonia, Estonia and the United Kingdom – are thirtieth, twenty-second, fourteenth and fifth in the ranking. The highest scores, 1.85 and 2.14, allow Estonia and the United Kingdom to progress. The Northern European nation achieved excellent results on transparency, good results on justice, and fair results on participation. The Estonian government is required to make environmental information publicly available proactively. The United Kingdom excels on transparency, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which gives everyone the right to access information on request and makes access to information timely and affordable. In addition, government authorities are obliged to make environmental and public health information available to the public.
Participants: Venezuela, Macedonia, Estonia and the United Kingdom
Advancing to the round of sixteen: Estonia and the United Kingdom
Group D is made up of Mongolia, the Dominican Republic, Peru and Ireland, occupying twenty-ninth, twenty-first, thirteenth and eleventh place in the ranking. The top two are Peru and Ireland, with scores of 1.87 and 1.93. The South American state guarantees transparency and participation; citizens can have their say on a range of environmental decisions, such as projects and the granting of licences. Ireland, which has ratified the Aarhus Convention, achieved a particularly high score on transparency: government authorities are required to make environmental information available to the public proactively.
Participants: Mongolia, the Dominican Republic, Peru and Ireland
Advancing to the round of sixteen: Peru and Ireland
In group E we have Ukraine, India, Ecuador and South Africa, which sit in twenty-eighth, twentieth, thirty-second and fourth place respectively. Thanks to scores of 1.75 and 2.16, India and South Africa advance to the next round. The populous Asian nation stands out for its excellent judicial system, which allows justice to be sought in cases of environmental rights violations. The African country scores well across all three parameters, and most of its laws require the relevant agencies to take public opinion into account in environmental decisions.
Participants: Ukraine, India, Ecuador and South Africa
Through to the round of sixteen: India and South Africa
Nicaragua, Mexico, Colombia and the United States are the nations in group F, ranked twenty-seventh, nineteenth, tenth and third respectively in the Edi standings. The best in group F are, with scores of 1.99 and 2.16, Colombia and the United States. The Colombian constitution guarantees the public a broad right of access to environmental information, even if citizens are not always aware of it. In the United States, the Freedom of Information Act (Foia) provides access to environmental information on request and defines restrictively the information that cannot be disclosed. All relevant agencies are required to make information useful for health and on environmental quality proactively available to the public. The Clean Water Act, meanwhile, requires the publication of biennial reports on water quality.
Participants: Nicaragua, Mexico, Colombia and the United States
Through to the round of sixteen: Colombia and the United States
Group G is made up of Trinidad and Tobago, Romania, Panama and Latvia, which place twenty-sixth, eighteenth, ninth and second respectively. Through to the round of sixteen are Panama, with 2.2, and Latvia, with 2.31. In Panama, all relevant government agencies are required to make environmental information available to citizens. With regard to participation, institutions must consider citizens' opinions when making decisions that have an impact on the environment. Latvia achieved excellent results for access to information, as the public has the right to receive information at both statutory and constitutional level. Provision is also made for the publication of a report on the state of the environment for the immediate disclosure of information in cases where there is an imminent threat to human health or the environment.
Participants: Trinidad and Tobago, Romania, Panama and Latvia
Through to the round of sixteen: Panama and Latvia
In group H, finally, we have Argentina, El Salvador, Russia and Lithuania, which rank twenty-fifth, seventeenth, eighth and first in the Environmental Democracy Index standings. With scores of 2.6 and 2.39, Russia and Lithuania are the last two nations to qualify. Russian government agencies provide environmental data with good transparency, and data on air quality and drinking water quality are available to the public. Lithuania is the nation that achieved the highest Edi score, above all by virtue of its excellent results on transparency and justice. Citizens have the right to access environmental information on request, and government agencies actively invite citizens to participate in the initial stage of the decision-making process.
Participants:Argentina, El Salvador, Russia and Lithuania
Through to the round of sixteen: Russia and Lithuania
Between Bulgaria and Indonesia, the European nation comes out on top, thanks to its extreme transparency and the prominent role citizens play in environmental decisions. Indonesia, meanwhile, still has some shortcomings when it comes to enforcing laws in defence of the environment.
The United Kingdom wins the contest; its citizens enjoy strong rights and have the power to challenge various decisions that could have an impact on the environment. Peru achieved good results on transparency, participation and justice, however there are financial and gender barriers to accessing justice.
South Africa advances to the quarter-finals; the South African government is required to proactively seek public approval during the decision-making process for measures concerning the environment. In Colombia, despite the strong overall score, citizens rarely have the right to participate in drawing up plans that may have an impact on the environment.
In the "Baltic derby", Latvia comes out on top thanks to the ease with which citizens can access environment-related information. Latvians can also actively contribute to the development of regulations, policies, plans and management programmes. In Russia, by contrast, only some government decisions on environmental matters are required to be publicised through the media, and access to justice is not straightforward for all citizens.
Hungary takes the victory; in this country the law requires that the public must have the opportunity to participate in the initial stage of most decisions that may have a significant impact on the environment. In Brazil, access to environmental justice is particularly difficult for the poor and ethnic groups.
A closely contested match, won by a handful of points by Ireland, where citizens can access a great deal of environmental information on request and have the opportunity to participate in a wide range of decisions. Estonia, meanwhile, needs to improve on access to justice and the defence of citizens' environmental rights.
The clash between the two great world powers sees the United States prevail. In the US, citizens have access to information in a clear and straightforward way and can challenge administrative decisions. In India, information on drinking water quality is not proactively provided to residents in the capital, and women are still discriminated against with regard to access to justice.
In the last round-of-sixteen match, Lithuania overcomes Panama thanks to the large amount of useful environmental information made available to the public, such as data on air quality and drinking water quality. In Panama, meanwhile, data on air quality and drinking water quality for the capital, Panama City, are not publicly available.
The United Kingdom defeats Bulgaria thanks to the great freedom granted to its citizens, who have the right to challenge any decision, act or omission by private actors that allegedly violates environmental rights. Bulgaria, despite its good transparency, rarely promotes active citizen participation, and licences granted for extractive industry activities are not made public.
This match is won by Latvia, whose government is required to provide citizens with the opportunity to participate in environmental decision-making across a wide range of sectors. In South Africa, by contrast, access to information is limited and, for example, only a few environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are available to the public.
Hungary advances to the semi-finals thanks to its notable freedom of information and the importance given to citizens' opinions on environmental matters. Ireland also makes a great deal of information available to its citizens, but access to this data is sometimes cumbersome due to the absence of standardisation. The enforcement of criminal court decisions relating to the environment is also insufficiently prompt.
A close contest between the United States and Lithuania, won by the Baltic country, which grants citizens the right to bring environmental complaints before the courts and to challenge government decisions that violate environmental rights. The authorities are also required to seek citizens' opinions on decisions that have an impact on the environment. The United States scores very well overall, but some states are more restrictive than others and access to environmental justice is difficult.
Latvian citizens have the right to request information from all branches of government, and the most important ministries must proactively make environmental information public.