Feature image via Canva Pro.

This post, written by Global Voices contributor Emma Lewis, was originally published at The Breadfruit Collective as part of a Caribbean campaign to explain the regional Escazú Agreement and its importance for environmental defenders. An edited version appears below with permission.

“Sorry, your request is denied.”

“This is a business agreement, and therefore confidential.”

“We will have to look at your request and get back to you, but …”

Paradoxically, in this so-called “age of information,” facts, data, even a timeline of events, are not as easy to find as one might expect. Documents that should be available to the public and online are often shrouded in mystery. Organisations, institutions, and individuals may feel the urge to keep information close to their chest, sometimes without any real justification for doing so. There is a perception of a general lack of concern, in both public and private sectors, about making information readily available. “Why do you need to know?” they may ask. “What business is it of yours?” And red tape – bureaucracy – gets in the way.

One could go so far as to say that a culture of secrecy lingers among post-colonial countries in the Caribbean. The Official Secrets Act remains on the books in a number of Caribbean countries, including The Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, and others. This is despite calls from civil society organisations and comments from political leaders over the years that this outdated law should be repealed.

As environmental defenders in the region face a range of challenges, there is an urgent need to highlight this information dilemma. This is where the Escazú Agreement — the first regional environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean — comes in.

The agreement (officially called the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean) was adopted in Escazú, Costa Rica, on March 4, 2018. It represents a significant milestone in ensuring the protection of environmental rights and the safety of environmental defenders. Moreover, it is the only binding agreement stemming from the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the first regional environmental agreement of Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first in the world containing specific provisions on environmental human rights defenders.

Speaking with Dr. Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie, Chief Executive Officer at the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), she noted, “Access to information is essential for environmental defenders, enabling us to speak out and participate in environmental decisions which affect our lives and livelihoods.” As one of the key pillars of the Escazú Agreement, access to information is closely linked to its other key goals: public participation and justice. As a foundational principle of Escazú, it empowers the public to be enlightened on important matters affecting their lives, and ensures environmental justice. Without the relevant information, those two pillars would fall down.

The public needs to know more about Escazú for the simple reason that this agreement is not just another environmental protection contract. It is about people — the protectors of the environment — and it deals with, among other things, how they receive and share information on environmental concerns and the need to protect the protectors, which is critical, especially in Latin America, where lives are often at risk.

A stubborn refusal to provide information or even the subtle, complex ways in which it can be made difficult to obtain, can stop environmental defenders in their tracks. How can they move forward when they cannot see the full picture? Lack of transparency not only hampers their work; it also impedes any kind of meaningful discourse with stakeholders, institutions and individuals that environmental campaigners might wish to engage.

As a result, misunderstandings creep in. Communication falters. Rumours spread. And then, in come those evil twins: misinformation (meaning false information spread unintentionally) and disinformation (meaning wrong information, deliberately spread by someone with ill intent). I am sure we are familiar with these two, especially on social media. We already know that distortion of facts and information can cause tremendous harm in society; it can certainly affect environmental defenders in many ways, heightening prejudice and misrepresentation of their important work.

So, what is the answer? Well-crafted legislation is always a good first step. Not all countries in the region have it, but some are currently looking at it, so the Caribbean is making some progress in this respect. In the case of Jamaica, however, Dr. Rodriguez-Moodie believes there is a need for a closer look at the current Access to Information Act, which she says “is in need of review and revision,” making it “more important than ever to ensure this right supports transparency and effective advocacy.”

In a separate interview, human rights advocate Susan Goffe stressed, “Fundamental to the whole Access to Information (ATI) system is that the information held by the government belongs to the people. There is so much of it that should be routinely and proactively published, posted, and released, doing away with the need to make ATI requests for such information, for example, in the public health sector.” As such, Goffe considers the ATI Act of 2002 to be “one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in Jamaica in the past quarter century…with all its flaws and the problems with implementation.”

The Jamaican legislation is currently under review following a 2011 report by a parliamentary committee, but it is taking a long time, and Goffe has concerns that it should not be weakened in any way. “One of the longstanding problems,” she explains, “has been the length of time it often takes to get responses and actual information. Some agencies and ministries have a good record, and others are notoriously poor in their response. The response needs to be uniformly good across the government.”

As infrastructural developments, especially on our Caribbean islands’ fragile coastlines, continue apace, access to information is a considerable challenge when it involves private sector developers. During the “Save Goat Islands” campaign in Jamaica, led by JET and supported by many local and international environmental organisations, there was a dearth of information available from both government and the proposed developers, China Harbour Engineering Corporation, as related documents were a private “business agreement.”

In Grenada, environmental defenders have come up against major challenges; in October, the Coral Cove group won a court case, challenging the Planning & Development Authority’s decision to deny public access to planning application information, including the application plans and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports. In the case of the high-rise Pinnacle development in Montego Bay, situated on the edge of a protected wetlands area, no EIA was done at all, and it is going ahead, regardless.

So, there are issues with existing legislation. Quite frequently, environmental defenders are forced to take legal action, both costly and time-consuming, as a last resort. There is the strangling bureaucracy that hampers environmental defenders’ quest for information. However, there is also this overarching and urgent need: in this information age, the Caribbean needs to move from a culture of secrecy to one of openness and transparency.

In other words, we need to step from the shadows into the light. The Escazú Agreement, which entered into force on April 22, 2021, should be an important tool in making this process, slow as it may be, a reality. Out of 24 regional countries that have signed, only three Caribbean countries have not yet ratified it: the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica. These countries should recognise that it is in their best interest, and that of their people, to do so. As Indian activist Aruna Roy says: “The right to know is the right to live.”