General
Aspects on the Right to Access Environmental Information in Brazil
by José Antônio
TIETZMANN E SILVA,
Professor and Researcher at the Federal University of Goiás
and at the Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás
(Brazil), lawyer in Environmental and Urban matters and Luciane
MARTINS DE ARAÚJO,
Professor and Researcher at the Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás (Brazil), lawyer in Environmental and Agrarian
matters.
There is no doubt that
environmental protection has become a subject of utmost importance in the last
decades and especially in recent years, though the discussions on this matter
are still recent, whether considering the national or the international scene.
Indeed, the leading moment
for discussing the international juridical frame for environmental protection
was the 1972 Stockholm conference, followed by three others, held at Rio, in
1992, in Johannesburg, ten years later, and again in Rio de Janeiro, in 2012.
Each and every of these
moments contributed to the moulding and consolidating
of the international juridical frame for environmental protection, by the means
of principles and norms with direct consequences to the national States’
juridical framework - a brief overview of the introduction and the evolution of
environmental norms within each country shows a clear connection with the
international framework.
Anyway, considering the
fundamental principles and norms of Environmental Law, there is the right to a
healthy environment, defended by the prevention and precautionary principles,
but also by other ones. That’s the case of the access to environmental
information, the participation in decision-making processes that affect the
environment as well as the access to justice. These are indeed presented as
fundamental rights.
This becomes evident from
the 1998 Aarhus Convention (UNECE, 1998), an international norm that has these
three rights as its pillars and aims at guaranteeing the right to a healthy
environment. Due to its importance as an international norm, this Convention became
global since 2014 and has even emulated a negotiation process for a regional
text concerning these pillars and their implementation in the Latin America and
the Caribbean region[1].
It
is also on the international scene where both the European and the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights[2] have recognized
that the procedural right to environmental information must be not only
recognized but also implemented and respected by National States norms and
procedures, in order to guarantee the fulfillment of the right to a healthy
environment itself – and its connection to the very right to life is also an
undeniable fact.
Within
this scenario, Brazilian environmental legislation states that the right to a
healthy environment and its operational
pillars — that are the access to environmental information, the opening of
decision-making processes for public participation and the access to justice –
are included among the preceding fundamental rights.
These
are guaranteed at the constitutional level, where there is a public duty of
publicity as a general rule, as well as by specific legislation, like the 2003
Brazilian Environmental Information Act, a norm that can be easily held as an Aarhus descendant (BRAZIL, 2003) —
even though Brazil has not adhered to this Convention.
Considering
this juridical framework, it is interesting to have a look on how the first
pillar of the Aarhus Convention, the fundamental right to environmental
information, is being implemented in Brazil, under the light of its juridical
framework and of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) instruments.
The
approach to this subject will be made in three major parts: the first one,
dedicated to the right of having environmental information and how it is
presented in Brazil; the second one will present the links between ICT and the
right of accessing environmental information; as for the third part, it
concerns how environmental information and ICT can be an excellent support for
public policies, though there are various barriers for using this kind of
instrument, on the one hand, as well as for delivering environmental
information, on the other hand.
When
it concerns the right of accessing information, Brazilian 1988 Constitution
ensures it to everyone, as long as it is necessary to the exercise of a
professional activity (art. 5, XIV); it is also guaranteed that everyone who
needs to access personal information that is kept in public files may use a
judicial procedure called habeas data, in the case of a negative answer
from the Administration (art. 5, LXXII); and, in another perspective, the very
Administration must obey the principles brought by article 37, publicity
figuring among them — which means that all administrative acts that do not
concern information protected by law (national interest, national security,
intellectual property…) or aren’t considered as part of an internal
deliberation process must be made public by all means (BRAZIL, 1988)[3].
As
for environmental information, it cannot be dissociated from the right to the
environment, affirmed by the head of article 225: “Everyone has the right to an
ecologically balanced environment, which is an asset of common use and
essential to a healthy quality of life, and both the Government and the community
shall have the duty to defend and preserve it for present and future
generations.” (BRAZIL, 1988)
There
are indeed countless environmental problems that affect more and more people
and economic activities, whether in cities and in rural areas. That is the case
of extreme weather events all over the world, which is becoming more frequent,
due to climate change.
Regarding
the right to the environment, that demands not only a passive — but also a
proactive — status to all that are entitled to it, each and every one must act,
in order to give his share of contribution to sustainability. It is an action
that demands environmental education and awareness as a process to be
reinforced. Furthermore, one must consider that: “Environmental information
aims not only at the history of the facts, but mostly at constructing people’s
knowledge, so that they can verify what is going on and what could happen.
Being informed, they will have the possibility of deliberating about
intervening or not, because the lack of knowledge leads to civic blindness.” [4] (P. LEME MACHADO,
2017, p. 238).
That
is why the access to environmental information is of utmost importance for the
very participation of the population in defending their right to the
environment - as well as the environment in its complexity. It’s important to
stress in this way that although environmental information is a technical
issue, it must be understandable for all and rapidly provided, as Leme Machado stresses: “The fact that environmental
information transmits technical data does not put away the obligation for this
information to be clear and understandable for the public that receives it.”[5] (2006, p. 91).
Indeed,
how could anybody defend and preserve
their right to the environment when not provided with adequate environmental
information or not being aware of the weight of environmental issues? Moreover,
how can the public, whether directly concerned or not by a specific
environmental problem, for example, be aware that there are means of obtaining
environmental information for defending the threatened environment and their
life quality?
In
this way, if each and every sphere of the Government (Federal, federate states
and municipalities) must obey the publicity principle,[6] which means full
transparency of governmental acts, this is certainly also valid for the
Environmental Administration.
As
a matter of fact, Brazilian Constitution, in its article 225, 1st paragraph,
fourth line, states that the Government must demand, “for the installation of
works and activities which may potentially cause significant degradation of the
environment, a prior environmental impact assessment, which shall be made
public” (BRAZIL, 1988). In other words, and along with the presumption of
specific norms, the publicity of an EIA demands that not only the technical
studies but also a non-technical report must be made available to the public
(whether concerned or not by the works
and activities above mentioned).
Information
and participation of every person involved is also present when it comes to
analyze the urban impacts of a given activity, by the means of the neighboring
impact assessment. This instrument aims at assessing the positive and negative
effects of a construction/activity to the quality of life, considering the impacts
on urban density, urban equipments, the use and the
occupation of soil, the increase/decrease on real estate prices, traffic,
public transportation, ventilation and illumination, urban landscape, natural
and cultural heritage[7].
Another
element connected to environmental information within the 1988 Constitution is
the fact that promoting “environmental education in all school levels and
public awareness of the need to preserve the environment” is part of the
Government’s obligations concerning the right to the environment (art. 225, 1st
paragraph, sixth line).
Environmental
information is also present in the cases of suppression or modification of
nature conservation units (like National or State Parks) or the localization of
a future nuclear facility: in both situations a specific law is needed, which
presumes a minimum of publicity concerning their elaboration and discussion
processes. When it comes to conservation units, federal law is clear in
demanding public hearings both for their creation and modification - an
instrument of public participation that demands, obviously, previous public
information.
In
this way, as previously mentioned, even if Brazil hasn’t adhered to the 1998
Aarhus Convention, the elements concerning the right to access information,
public participation and access to justice in environmental matters may be
clearly found in this country’s norms.
Concerning
specifically the right to environmental information and following the Aarhus
experience, there is the Law 10.650/2003, a text that stresses the right to
have an enlarged access to environmental information. The Brazilian norm states
in its article 2, § 1, that “any individual, regardless of proving a specific
interest, will have access to the information concerned by this Law […]”, as
well as that author and industrial rights are protected (BRAZIL, 2003).
Accordingly, P. Leme Machado states,
that “Environmental information interests to any individual. The one who asks for information doesn’t
need to prove, whether before or after, what are the reasons for demanding it.
The requester doesn’t need to invoke or make reference to the possibility or to
the effective violation of a right. [He] doesn’t need to prove a social and/or
environmental damage. Everyone has the legitimacy to request information.” [8] (2017, p. 232)
Under
the example of the (then) European Convention and its widening on environmental
information access, the norm affirms that everyone has the right to have
information on: a) environmental quality; b) policies, plans and programmes that may be harmful to the environment; c)
pollution and forest recovery; d) risk and damage situations; e) toxic and
dangerous substances; f) biological diversity, and; g) GMO’s[9].
The
list provided by this Act is not hermetic: Public Administration must then
provide a wide access to environmental information, even if the theme directly
concerned does not appear in this list. Leme Machado
indicates, however, the need and the importance of establishing a list of
subjects, since the Administration is left with less discretion to determine
whether to give publicity to environmental matters or not: “[…] As one can see from the wide list of
themes, past, present and future environmental matters must be informed [to the
population]. Thus, questions […] may be object of information by all concerned
public organism[10]. (P. LEME MACHADO, 2017, p. 237)
It
is also important to stress that Brazilian environmental legislation has built
several microsystems of environmental
information following the 1981 National Environmental Policy Act (BRAZIL,
1981), such as the National Environmental Information System, as well as
information systems related to water, sanitation, forests, protected areas,
pesticides, soil, urban risk areas and so on[11].
Even
if the right to participate in decision-making processes as
well as the right to have access to justice in environmental matters aren’t
part of this approach, it is important to illustrate how they are guaranteed at
the constitutional level. Public participation appears in the cases where it is
necessary to promote public hearings previous to an environmental-related
decision — in an authorization process, for example.
As
for the access to justice, it is guaranteed by a civil demand that may be
proposed by anyone — named people’s legal action — in order to assert
compliance with environmental norms[12].
Once
considered these elements, it is time to take a look on how present are ICT in
Brazil, especially concerning the aim of accessing environmental information.
Data[13] are not wrong, nor exaggerated when it comes to the access to ICT by
Brazilian population.
Indeed,
following the National Telecommunications Regulatory Agency (ANATEL), the
country has more cell phones than inhabitants: there are
242 million cell phones for something like 208 million Brazilians. Within this
universe, there are as much as 198 million smartphones, an amount that raised
in a rate of as much as 17% since last year, with the tendency of raising up to
18% in 2018, leading to the proportion of one smartphone per inhabitant in
Brazil.
As
for household internet connections, there has been a
constant increase since 2007, and 5,5% more connexions
over the last 12 months, summing up 28 million points of access in the whole
country. Concerning the hardware used in these internet
connexions, there were around 166 million notebooks,
desktop computers and tablets in use until December 2017, a raise of 5% since
2015. These data put Brazil ahead other countries, with the average of four
computers for each group of five inhabitants. The proportion of one computer
per inhabitant will be probably attained by 2022[14].
These
numbers do not correspond to a universal and efficient access to internet, though, either from a smartphone or from one’s
personal computer at home[15]. Indeed, the
numbers provided by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
demonstrate that roughly 60% of Brazilians have access to internet[16].
In
fact, when the quality of internet access is considered, on the one hand, and
the costs for having this service provided, on the other hand, it is difficult
to conclude that the number of smartphones, desktops, laptops and tablets that
exist in Brazil correspond to a connected
society.
Data
from the same ANATEL demonstrate that when it comes to attaining the agency’s
goals fixed for cell phone and internet connexion services, numbers do not raise upon 69,3% and
64,5%, respectively. Consumer complaints go along with this low fulfilling of
the established goals: in 2016 there were 1,855 complaints for cell phone
services and 581,000 complaints for household internet
services[17]. Regarding
consumer’s satisfaction, on the last survey made by ANATEL these very services
had an average rate of 6,7 points out of 10, household internet
connexion being the worst evaluated among the others[18].
ICT
data also points out that telecom services in Brazil are very expensive.
Internet household access is limited both by the lack of proper infrastructure
in certain cities and regions as well as by the cost of having access to the
service. As a result, internet household connexion attains more than 80% in classes A and B, falling
to 49% in class C and as low as 16% in classes D and E[19].
When
it comes specifically to environmental information and ICT there are some
aspects to be considered from the point of view of how Brazilians use this kind
of technology.
Certainly,
even if 60% of Brazilians are indeed connected to the Internet, data show that
almost 80% of these connections aim merely at consulting e-mails, followed by
message exchanging, and accessing social networks. Less than 20% of internet access concern the participation to online fora — where one could find, for example, hypothetic public
consultations within an environmental impact assessment or even the discussions
concerning a new masterplan for the city.
As
for e-government, data is still very alarming, because most Brazilians consult
governmental web pages in the search for personal information and data, as well
as some practical institutional information, like the opening times or the
telephone number of the considered administration. The participation in fora where matters of public interest are discussed is
about 10% of all the accesses.
Public
administration itself is mostly absent in using e-government platforms or in
providing discussions on the web. Data show that something like 18% of
Brazilian government platforms were used for polls, 11% for online public
consultations, 10% for discussions forums/communities and as little as 8% for
online voting - in public participation processes (BARBOSA, 2016, p. 427-428).
Indeed:
In the case of Brazil, the ICT
Electronic Government 2013 survey (CGI.br, 2014) seems to portray a similar
scenario. The survey, conducted with public managers and public organization
technicians, showed that approximately 55% of federal, 53% of state and 40% of
local government organizations provided online public consultation tools. Polls
were made available on 29% of federal, 23% of state and 25% of local government
organization sites, while online discussion forums were present in 19%, 17% and
10%, respectively. These figures alone lead to the impression that the
Brazilian government, at all levels, is reasonably supportive of e-participation.
Citizens seem to have numerous forms of contacting, interacting with and even
guiding their rulers.
On the other hand, research dedicated
to investigating and analyzing e-democracy and electronic government projects
indicate a different scenario. In practice, there are few effective online
consultation, deliberation or polling tools. A more detailed examination of
what defines participation reveals that there are few truly relevant
initiatives that combine institutional design of such instruments with practical
effectiveness, expressed through the empowerment of citizens. Even though
Brazil presents some exemplary cases of e-democracy, they remain exceptions in
the national scenario and aim at other democratic values, such as transparency
and following up with representatives […] (SAMPAIO; CARREIRO, 2016, p. 268).
This
reality goes along with the perception, among public agents, that public
information must be held only by the Administration due to the fact that
information held in paper format is still a current reality in the Brazilian
public sector.
There
are, thus, real barriers concerning the full access of the population to ICT
services and then, to environmental information - whether provided by using
these technologies or not.
It
is always essential for those who deal with data to analyze them within a
context, to insert them in a specific reality, to compare these data, to
question methodologies used for obtaining the data provided.
As
an example, a recent speech of the Brazilian President at the opening of the UN
General Assembly has led the country’s environmentalists to make a strong
protest, even though the President was not lying. He just said that the
Amazonian deforestation rate had shrunk in more than 20% over the last years.
As
a matter of fact, he didn’t lie, but he picked up official and non-official
data for a specific period of time and then, when finding out that these mixed-methology-data would provide a “positive agenda” for the
country (and for his own image) onto the international scene, voilà, the
speech would be a success! He did this, even if preliminary data lead to a
raise in about 58% of deforestation in the Amazonian region for 2017[20].
Another
element to be considered in the case of environmental data - in this case,
deforestation —, is the fact that there has always been a great focus directed
exclusively to the Amazonian rainforest, when the second largest Brazilian
biotope - the Cerrado —, has an impressive
deforestation rate if compared to the Amazonian rainforest: official data show
that this biotope has lost 52% more area in 2015 than the latter.
People
don’t talk that much, though, about the Cerrado, a
fact that reinforces the need for comparing environmental data in a broader view.
The
deforestation rates in Cerrado lead us to consider
the methodological problem for obtaining them, an issue that is clearly
perceived comparing the differences among data that brought here: following
official data, Brazil still had 64% of Cerrado in
2004 - the year of the first comprehensive study made by the Brazilian
Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE). By the time, many NGO’s argued,
supported by WWF data, that no more than 19,15% of this biotope was still in
good conditions.
As
for the deforestation rate, it was estimated in 1,5% per year, following the
Nature Conservancy, and of 0,25%, according to academic research data,
conducted by the Federal University of Goiás[21].
In
face of this mix of information, what can be considered as good or bad environmental
information? How easy is it to disinform the
population, by manipulating data or simply by mixing different methodologies
for obtaining these data?
As
an example of the information that leads to disinformation, there’s the Renca case in Brazil.
It
is known that this country has the largest biodiversity in the world, scattered
in different biomes all over the country. The Amazon Rainforest, the largest
Brazilian biome, is the most visible onto the international scene. It occupies
more than 50% of the total area of Brazil and expands to its neighboring
countries, being mega diverse and the largest tropical rainforest on Earth.
This rainforest is irrigated by the biggest fluvial chain in the world, with
15% of the available freshwater on the planet.
The
modification on the Amazonian forest — especially because of the expansion of
agriculture and livestock, but also by illegal timber and mining — leads to
direct impacts on precipitation patterns in Brazil, as well as in other parts
of the world. Not to mention the biodiversity loss and the damages caused to
traditional populations.
It
is in this context that the Federal Government implemented in 2004 a public
policy aiming specifically at reducing the Amazon deforestation. In spite of
the effectiveness of this program, deforestation rates have seen a continuous
increase in the last years, due to changes in budget — as a result of the
economic crisis — as well as the promulgation of the 2012 Brazilian Forest Act
(BRAZIL, 2012).
Since
the deforestation rates for 2016 and 2017 follow this trend, at the end of
August of the latter year, a presidential decree authorized private companies
to begin exploration in a federal mining reserve — the National Reserve of
Copper and Associates (RENCA) — with an area as large as Belgium, with 47,000
square meters, across the Brazilian states of Pará
and Amapá.
Although
it is a mining reserve, whose main objective is to guarantee sovereignty over
strategic mineral resources, allowing its wide exploration would drive great
devastation to the Amazon Rainforest.
Indeed,
within the area of the Renca
there are eight environmental protected areas, three of them with severe
limitations in the name of their natural characteristics — Brazilian
legislation provides a special category of protected areas, the Integral
Protection Conservation Units, where economic exploration is not allowed — and
the other protected areas where sustainable use is authorized. Among these
conservation units, figures the State Forest of Paru
— the biggest protected area in the country — and the Tumucumaque
Mountains National Park - the widest among the federal environmental reserves[22].
There
are also two indigenous reserves in the area, where mining exploration is
forbidden.
Therefore,
if mining exploration should be authorized in the RENCA, the Amazon Rainforest
would suffer great environmental degradation even in these protected areas,
especially because this specific region is not yet explored. The mineral reserves there comprehend not only copper but also
gold, platinum, iron, manganese, nickel and rare metals, like niobium and
molybdenum. Considering this, mining would drive considerable resources — and
people — to this region, with great impacts on the forested and indigenous
areas, whether they are protected or not, for the simple reason that human
movements and settlements are barely controllable — especially in such a remote
region.
It
occurs that Brazilian population protested against mineral exploration in the
RENCA, which put pressure on the Federal Government, leading to publish another
decree, stating that the exploration would neither take place in environmental
protected areas, nor inside the indigenous reserves. This decree however did
not convince the people, that were suspicious about a
future reduction on the protected areas, with the support of the National
Congress — which is constituted by a great part of the agribusiness sector[23].
Therefore,
even with the new decree, public pressure continued, inducing the Brazilian
president to suspend this norm for a period of 120 days, in order to discuss
the exploration project with the population. Finally, after more than one
month, the Federal Government had to cancel the decree that made exploration in
this area possible.
This
is a good example of citizen participation, mainly by social networks, and in
the name of environmental protection, even though common sense information led
to a huge disinformation: people simply could not tell the difference between a
mineral and a natural reserve, because of the way that this issue
was presented by the Federal Government.
The
reliability of the information sources, as well as public awareness, are thus essential elements for anyone to be able to
interpret and use environmental information properly.
The
information provided must also be the latest available, in order to allow that
anyone that has access to it may have a clear and real-time panorama of the
state of the environment. In this way, it is pointless to publish or to deliver
outdated environmental information, by the simple fact that it is worthless
under the light of prevention and precaution, essential Environmental Law
principles.
Even
if the National Environmental Information System (SINIMA) was presented by the
1981 National Environmental Policy Act (BRAZIL, 1981), it is still not
effective, something that can also be seen throughout the other environmental
information microsystems.
There
is though the National Environmental Authorization Portal[24]. It works quite
well, providing data from each and every Brazilian Federate State, with tools
that allow anybody to find out if the company “A”, “B” or “C” is functioning
properly under Environmental Law - in other words, if this or that activity is
indeed authorized by the Public Environmental Administration.
The
problem with this kind of tool in a continental and federal country like Brazil
is that all the information needed to feed this portal is provided by each one
of the 5,560 Municipalities, the 26 Federate States and the Federal District.
And, furthermore, this information must be really up to date, even if
environmental authorizations may last from one to ten years, depending on the
activity to be considered and the legislation concerned — at the federal, the
states’, or the municipalities’ level.
That
is why this portal is an interesting tool but it should be handled carefully,
because data obtained must be confirmed locally, where information was
generated.
The
access to environmental information is indeed a fundamental right under
Brazilian legislation, figuring as an instrument for guaranteeing another
fundamental right, that is the right to a healthy
environment. That is why it is considered as a procedural right and constitutes
one the positive obligations for each and every National State, under the light
of recent decisions from international courts — the November 2017 consultative
opinion from the IACHR being an interesting example.
Environmental
information is delivered through different forms, but always aiming at
education and awareness, the central points to form new values in society, in
order to respect the natural environment and all forms of life, as well as the
cultural environment and its values.
The
outspread of such information leads to human and social behavior
transformation, demanding individual and collective responsibility. It involves
a wide perspective, that includes individual behavior,
but also the need for modifications in social behavior, governmental planning
and action, as well as production and consumption patterns.
Environmental
education could thus include a network structure to create an environmental
consciousness, such as seen in the case of RENCA in Brazil, where there was an
effective public pressure through the social networks — thus by the means of
ICT — generating a significant response against the government action, forcing
it to reconsider its decision and draw a great setback for environmental
protection.
To
this purpose, population awareness is a fundamental key to put pressure on
governments in order to avoid setbacks in environmental protection.
The
implementation of this right relies greatly on ICT, especially in a society
that is becoming more and more connected to the Internet and dependent on this
kind of technology. Therefore, ICT must not be apart when it comes to having
real-time access to environmental information, which is needed mostly in urgent
cases, preventing thus environmental damage.
Anyway,
whether for prevention, planning or repressive actions, ICT provides
interesting tools for implementing the right to a healthy environment. It must
be stressed, though, that it is not the panacea, but a tool for obtaining and
diffusing environmental information, which demands a prior deep analysis so
that it can be up to date, accurate and reliable.
A. BARBORSA, (coord.).
Survey on the use of information and communication technologies in the
Brazilian public sector : ICT electronic government
2015. São Paulo : Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, 2016.
BRAZIL. Federal Act n. 6.938, from
August 31st, 1981, that “Concerns the National Environmental Policy, its
objectives, its formulation and application mechanisms, and further
provisions.” DOU from September 2nd, 1981.
BRAZIL. Federal Constitution.
Promulgated on October 5th, 1988.
BRAZIL. Federal Act n. 10.257, from
July 10th, 2001, that “Regulates articles 182 and 183 of the Federal
Constitution, provides the general orientations for urban policy and further
provisions”. DOU from July 11th, 2001.
BRAZIL. Federal Act n. 10.650, from
April 16th, 2003, that “Concerns the public access to data and information
within the organisms and entities that are part of the SISNAMA”. DOU
from April 17th, 2003.
BRAZIL. Federal Act n. 12.651, from May
25th, 2012, that “Concerns the protection of native vegetation; modifies Acts
ns. 6.938, from
August 31st, 1981, 9.393, from December 19th, 1996, and 11.428, from December
22nd, 2006; revokes the Acts ns. 4.771, from September 15th, 1965, and 7.754,
from April 14th, 1989, and the Provisional Measure n. 2.166-67, from August
24th, 2001; and gives further provisions.” DOU
from May 28th, 2012.
INTER-AMERICAN COURT
OF HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR). Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17 de 15 de noviembre de 2017 solicitada por la República de Colombia.
Medio ambiente y derechos humanos - Obligaciones estatales en relación con el medio ambiente en el marco de la protección y garantía de los derechos a la vida y a la integridad personal - Interpretación
y alcance de los artículos
4.1 y 5.1, en relación con los artículos
1.1 y 2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_23_esp.pdf, access on February, 12th, 2018.
P. LEME MACHADO, Direito
à informação e meio ambiente. São Paulo: Malheiros,
2006.
P. LEME MACHADO, Direito
Ambiental Brasileiro.
São Paulo: Malheiros, 2017.
R. C. SAMPAIO;
R. CARREIRO, “In practice, theory is different: The importance of concept to
understanding the state of the art of e-participation in Brazil”. In BARBOSA, Alexandre F. (coord.). Survey on the use of information and
communication technologies in the Brazilian public sector :
ICT electronic government 2015. São Paulo : Comitê Gestor
da Internet no Brasil, 2016.
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
(UNECE). Convention on Access to
Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and access to Justice in
Environmental Matters. Adopted at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998.
Available at:
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf, access on February 15th, 2018.
[1] For further information on this
process, see https://www.cepal.org/es/organos-subsidiarios/reunion-comite-negociacion-principio-10-america-latina-caribe, access on February
15th, 2018.
[2]
Following the Consultative opinion OC-23/17 from November,
15th, 2017 (IACHR, 2017).
[3] Article 5. All
persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever,
Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country being ensured of
inviolability of the right to life, to liberty, to equality, to security and to
property, on the following terms: XIV
– access to information is ensured to everyone and the
confidentiality of the source shall be safeguarded, whenever necessary to the
professional activity; LXXII – habeas
data shall be granted: a) to
ensure the knowledge of information related to the person of the petitioner,
contained in records or data banks of government agencies or of agencies of a
public character; b) for the correction of data, when the petitioner does not
prefer to do so through a confidential process, either judicial or administrative;
Article 37. The governmental
entities and entities owned by the Government in any of the powers of the
Union, the states, the Federal District and the Municipalities shall obey the
principles of lawfulness, impersonality, morality, publicity, and efficiency,
and also the following: […]”.
[4]
Translated from Portuguese by the authors.
[5]
Translated from Portuguese by the authors.
[6] Affirmed by article 37 (BRAZIL, 1988).
[7]
Following article 37 of the Brazilian City Statute (BRAZIL, 2001).
[8]
Translated from Portuguese by the authors.
[9]
Genetic modified organisms.
[10] Translated from Portuguese by the
authors.
[11]
Further information on P. Leme
Machado (2006).
[12] 1988 Federal Constitution, articles 225, 1st
paragraph, fourth line (already quoted in the text) and 5, LXXIII: “LXXIII – any
citizen is a legitimate party to file a people’s legal action with a view to
nullifying an act injurious to the public property or to the property of an
entity in which the State participates, to the administrative morality, to the
environment, and to the historic and cultural heritage, and the author shall,
save in the case of proven bad faith, be exempt from judicial costs and from
the burden of defeat;” (BRAZIL, 1988).
[13]
All of these data may be found in the internet site of
ANATEL, anatel.gov.br,
access on October, 20th, 2017.
[14] These data were provided by a research conducted by
Fernando Meirelles from the FGV, that may be found on
the following internet site: http://eaesp.fgvsp.br/sites/eaesp.fgvsp.br/files/pesti2017gvciappt.pdf, access on October 20th, 2017.
[15]
For more information, see http://www.anatel.gov.br/dados/controle-de-qualidade, access on October,
20th, 2017.
[16] ITU. Brazil Profile. Available on
http://www.itu.int/net4/itu-d/icteye/CountryProfile.aspx, access on October 21st, 2017.
[17]
Data available on http://www.anatel.gov.br/consumidor/reclamacoes-na-anatel2/servicos,
access on October, 20th, 2017.
[18]
The survey results are available on
http://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/verificaDocumentos/documento.asp?numeroPublicacao=346855&assuntoPublicacao=null&caminhoRel=null&filtro=1&documentoPath=346855.pdf,
access on October 20th, 2017.
[19]
Data available on http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/geral/noticia/2016-09/328-milhoes-de-domicilios-nao-tem-acesso-internet-preco-e-maior-barreira,
access on October 21st, 2017.
[20]
Information available on http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-41327981, access on October 21st, 2017.
[21] Information obtained on the internet site
http://www.oei.es/historico/divulgacioncientifica/reportajes_024.htm, access on October 21st, 2017.