¹ See Pateman, C., Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

² Seligson, M.A. & Booth, J.A. (eds), Elections and Democracy in Central America Revisited (University of North Carolina Press, 1995), at pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

³ See Rousseau, J.J., The Social Contract (Watkins, F. (ed. & transl.), University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), at pp. 102–6.Google Scholar

⁴ Pring, G. & Noe, S.Y., ‘The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resources Development’, in Zillman, D.N., Lucas, A.R. & Pring, G. (eds), Human Rights in National Resource Development: Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resource (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 11–76, at 11.Google Scholar See also, Roughan, N., ‘Democratic Custom v International Customary Law’ (2007) 38 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, pp. 403–16, at 407.Google Scholar

⁵ See Pring & Noe, ibid., at p. 29; and Popovic, N.A.F., ‘The Right to Participate in Decisions that Affect the Environment’ (1993) 10(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 683–709, at 694.Google Scholar

⁶ Krämer, L., ‘Transnational Access to Environmental Information’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 95–104, at 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Weiner, N., The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (Doubleday & Company Inc., 1956), at p. 18.Google Scholar

⁸ See Kravchenko, S., ‘Is Access to Environmental Information a Fundamental Human Right?’ (2009) 11(2) Oregon Review of International Law, pp. 227–65, at 228Google Scholar; and Bell, S., McGillivray, D. & Pedersen, O., Environmental Law (8^th edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), at pp. 317–9.Google Scholar

⁹ Freedom of Information Act, 28 May 2011, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, (2011) 36(98) Official Gazette, available at: http://foia.justice.gov.ng/pages/resources/Freedom_Of_Information_Act.pdf.

¹⁰ See Tardi, G., ‘Law as a Counterweight to Politicisation in Democratic Public Management’ (2012) 38(4) Commonwealth Law Bulletin, pp. 591–615, at 595–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and S. Kravchenko, ‘Strengthening Implementation of MEAs: The Innovative Aarhus Compliance Mechanism’, paper presented at the 7^th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, Marrakech (Morocco), 7–15 Apr. 2005, at p. 4, available at: http://inece.org/conference/7/vol1/Kravchenko.pdf.

¹¹ This article focuses mainly on the duty of public authorities to provide environmental information upon request, and not on their duty to actively disseminate environmental information.

¹² See Pring & Noe, n. 4 above.

¹³ Paris (France), 16 Nov. 1972, in force 17 Dec. 1975, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 23 Oct. 1974.

¹⁴ New York, NY (United States), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int. Ratified by Nigeria on 19 Aug. 1994.

¹⁵ Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text. Ratified by Nigeria on 29 Aug. 1994.

¹⁶ Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biodiversity, Montreal (Canada), 29 Jan. 2000, in force 11 Sept. 2003, available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 15 July 2003.

¹⁷ Paris (France), 17 June 1994, in force 26 Dec. 1996, available at: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 8 July 1997.

¹⁸ UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/7, 28 Oct. 1982, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm.

¹⁹ Adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, available at: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

²⁰ Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26, 12 Aug. 1992, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

²¹ Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

²² See Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. & Hunter, D., ‘Democratizing Multilateral Development Banks’, in Bruch, C. (ed), The New ‘Public’: The Globalization of Public Participation (Environmental Law Institute, 2002), pp. 151–64.Google Scholar

²³ See N. Gertler & E. Milhollin, ‘Public Participation and Access to Justice in the World Trade Organisation’, in Bruch, ibid., pp. 193–202.

²⁴ See A. Fall, ‘Implementing Public Participation in African Development Bank Operations’, in Bruch, n. 22 above, pp. 165–74.

²⁵ J. Foti, ‘Rio+20 in the Rear View: Countries Commit to Improve Environmental Democracy’, WRI Insight, 2 July 2012, available at: http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/07/rio20-rear-view-countries-commit-improve-environmental-governance.

²⁶ Händl, G. (ed), Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 (UN Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2012)Google Scholar, at p. 6, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/dunche/dunche_e.pdf. See also G. Händl, ‘Human Rights and Protection of the Environment: A Mildly “Revisionist” View’, in C. Trindade (ed), Human Rights, Sustainable Development and the Environment (Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos/Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, 1992), pp. 117–42, at 139–40.

²⁷ A growing view highlighted in C. Bruch, ‘Legal Frameworks for Public and Stakeholder Involvement’, presentation at the Regional Workshop on Public Participation in International Waters Management in Latin America and the Caribbean, Montenegro (Uruguay), 6–9 Dec. 2006, available at: http://iwlearn.net/abt_iwlearn/events/workshops/p2/20061207/p2lac07-bruch. For a discussion on customary international law, see T. Treves, ‘Customary International Law’, in R. Wolfrum (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) (Oxford University Press, 2008), available at: http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e1393&recno=29&.

²⁸ Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports (2010), at p. 14, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf.

²⁹ A. Boyle, ‘Pulp Mills Case: A Commentary’, at p. 3, available at: http://www.biicl.org/files/5167_pulp_mills_case.pdf.

³⁰ Pulp Mills Case, n. 28 above, para. 205.

³¹ See Cameron, J. & Mackenzie, R., ‘Access to Environmental Justice and Procedural Rights in International Institutions’, in Boyle, A. & Anderson, M. (eds), Human Rights Approach to Environmental Protection (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 129–52, at 134.Google Scholar

³² See UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), ‘Rio Principle 10 National Profile and Action Plan Project’, available at: http://www.unitar.org/egp/rio-principle-10-projects.

³³ Stec, S. & Casey-Lefkowitz, S., The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (UN, 2001), Foreword, at p. v. (Aarhus Guide).Google Scholar

³⁴ Mason, M., ‘Information Disclosure and Environmental Rights: The Aarhus Convention’ (2010) 10(3) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 10–31, at 21–2.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., at p. 160. See also Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 6; Hallo, R., ‘Access to Environmental Information: The Reciprocal Influences of EU Law and the Aarhus Convention’, in Pallemaerts, M. (ed), The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions Between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law (Europa Law, 2011), pp. 55–66, at 62Google Scholar; Antonelli, A. & Biondi, A., ‘Implementing the Aarhus Convention: Some Lessons from the Italian Experience’ (2003) 5(3) Environmental Law Review, pp. 170–78, at 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Available at: http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Compliance/NegotiatingMEAs/Transparency/Resource/tabid/605/Default.aspx.

³⁷ See J. Wates, ‘The Future of the Aarhus Convention: Perspectives Arising from the Third Session of the Meeting of the Parties’, in Pallemaerts (ed), n. 35 above, pp. 383–412, at 395.

³⁸ See Nascimento da Nóbrega, S.A., ‘Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of the Aarhus Convention with Brazilian Legislation’ (2011) 2 Environmental Law Network International, pp. 87–95, at 87–8.Google Scholar

³⁹ UNEP, 4^th Programme for the Development and Review of Environmental Law, UNEP/GC.25/INF/15/Add.2, 29 Oct. 2008, at p. 3, available at: http://www.unep.org/gc/gc25/info-docs.asp.

⁴⁰ Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 6.

⁴¹ Taskin and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 46117/99, Judgment of 10 Nov. 2004, pp. 1–29, available at: http://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ECtHR-2005-Taskin-and-Ors-v-Turkey.pdf.

⁴² Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 613–42, at 624.Google Scholar

⁴³ UNECA, Improving Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mineral Resources in Africa (UNECA, 2004), at pp. 15–6 and 37, available at: http://repository.uneca.org/bitstream/handle/10855/5560/bib.%2039823_I.pdf?sequence=1.

⁴⁴ See n. 16 above.

⁴⁵ M.W. Kamara, Public Participation in African Biosafety Regulations and Policy (African Union Commission, 2010), at p. 8, available at: http://www.cbd.int/bs/doc/outreach/auc-public-participation-en.pdf.

⁴⁶ UNEP/GCSS.XI/11, Decision SS.XI/5, Part A, 26 Feb. 2010, available at: http://www.unep.org/civil-society/Portals/24105/documents/Guidelines/GUIDELINES_TO_ACCESS_TO_ENV_INFO_2.pdf.

⁴⁷ The UNEP Governing Council is a political body made up of 58 Member States elected by the UN General Assembly for three-year terms on the following basis (taking into account the principle of equitable regional representation): 16 seats for African states, 13 seats for Asian states, 6 seats for Eastern European states, 10 seats for Latin American states, and 13 seats for Western European and other states. Generally, the UNEP General Council has responsibility for recommending and providing policies relevant for environmental protection. See UNGA Resolution 2997 (XXVII), 15 Dec. 1972, on Institutional and Financial Arrangements for International Environmental Cooperation, available at: http://www.unep.org/PDF/UN_GA_2997.pdf.

⁴⁸ Bali Guidelines, n. 46 above, Annex.

⁴⁹ See Heyvaert, V. & Etty, T.F.M., ‘Introducing Transnational Environmental Law’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 1–11, at 3–5Google Scholar; and Fisher, E., ‘The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law and the Expertise of Environmental Lawyers’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Y. Omorogbe, ‘The Power of the People: Public Participation and Control in Resource-rich States’, presentation at the 36^th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society of International Law, River State (Nigeria), 14–6 Sept. 2006.

⁵¹ See West African Insight, ‘Oil Exploration, Environmental Rights, and the Future of Nigeria’s Niger Delta’, West African Insight, 10 Oct. 2010, available at: http://westafricainsight.org/articles/PDF/61.

⁵² In Nigeria, in accordance with s. 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Cap 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) (Nigerian Constitution), a legislative enactment is needed to give domestic effect to the provisions of a treaty ratified by the Nigerian government.

⁵³ E.g., Evidence Act, Cap E14; Public Complaints Commission Act, Cap P37; Statistics Act, Cap S10; Criminal Code Act, Cap C38; National Security Agencies Act, Cap N74 – all under the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

⁵⁴ Cap O3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

⁵⁵ Ibid., s. 1.

⁵⁶ See s. 9(1).

⁵⁷ S. Olukoya, ‘Rights-Nigeria: Freedom of Information Bill Proves Elusive’, Inter Press Service, 21 June 2004, available at: http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=24297.

⁵⁸ Amnesty International, Nigeria: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta (Amnesty International, 2009), at p. 21, available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/017/2009/en/e2415061-da5c-44f8-a73c-a7a4766ee21d/afr440172009en.pdf.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 61.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 51.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ (2001) African Human Rights Law Reports 60.

⁶⁴ Ibid., para. 4.

⁶⁵ Art. 16 generally provides for the right of every individual to the ‘best attainable state of physical and mental health’.

⁶⁶ Art. 24 provides for the right of all peoples to ‘a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development’.

⁶⁷ Banjul (Gambia), 27 June 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986, available at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm.

⁶⁸ Ogoniland case, n. 63 above, paras 53 and 70–1.

⁶⁹ African Charter, n. 67 above, Art. 45.

⁷⁰ I.e., African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

⁷¹ C.A. Odinkalu, ‘Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Law: How Friends Launched a Movement’, Open Society Foundations, 3 June 2011, available at: http://www.soros.org/voices/nigeria-s-freedom-information-law-how-friends-launched-movement.

⁷² Ibid.

⁷³ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 31 defines ‘public institution’ to include government bodies and some private entities.

⁷⁴ Ibid., s. 1. See the definition of ‘person’ in s. 31 of the Act.

⁷⁵ Ibid., s. 1(1). See also ss. 28 and 30(2).

⁷⁶ Ibid., ss. 7 and 10.

⁷⁷ Ibid., ss. 2(6) and 20.

⁷⁸ See C.A. Odinkalu, ‘10 Myths about the FOI Act’, Right to Know, 25 Aug. 2011, available at: http://www.r2knigeria.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200&Itemid=313.

⁷⁹ E.g., Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US: see Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 35.

⁸⁰ FOI Act, n. 9 above, ss. 1(1) and 31. See Shelton, D. & Kiss, A., Judicial Handbook on Environmental Law (UNEP, 2005), at p. 27.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Kalu, V.E., ‘State Monopoly and Indigenous Participation Rights in Resource Development in Nigeria’ (2008) 24(3) Journal of Energy and Natural Resource Law, pp. 418–49, at 441–2Google Scholar; and Atsegbua, L., Akpotaire, V. & Dimowo, F., Environmental Law in Nigeria: Theory and Practice (2^nd edn, Ambik Press, 2010), at p. 250.Google Scholar

⁸² The Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria, ‘Nigeria’s 4^th Periodic Country Report: 2008–2010 on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights in Nigeria’, Aug. 2011, at p. 14, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/50th/state-reports/4th-2008-2010/staterep4_nigeria_2011_eng.pdf.

⁸³ N. 46 above, Guideline 1.

⁸⁴ E.g., UNFCCC, n. 14 above, Art. 6(a)(ii); UNCCD, n. 17 above, Art. 19(3)(b); and Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, n. 16 above, Art. 23(1)(b).

⁸⁵ Cf. Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 54.

⁸⁶ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 3(4).

⁸⁷ Commentary to Bali Guidelines 1 and 8, n. 48 above.

⁸⁸ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 3(3).

⁸⁹ For empirical evidence from India that supports this point, see Roberts, A., ‘A Great and Revolutionary Law? The First Four Years of India’s Right to Information Act’ (2010) 70(6) Public Administration Review, pp. 925–33, at 931.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Nigerian Communications Commission, ‘Annual Subscriber Data: 2012’, available at: http://www.ncc.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:art-statistics-subscriber-data&catid=65:cat-web-statistics&Itemid=73. See also International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ‘Measuring the Information Society’ (ITU, 2012), at p. 211, available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf.

⁹¹ ‘Guidelines on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, Revised Edition 2013’, published under the authority of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, available at: http://foia.justice.gov.ng/pages/resources/REVISED_GUIDELINES_ON_THE_IMPLEMENTATION_OF_THE_FOIA_2013.pdf.

⁹² FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 29(6).

⁹³ Attorney-General of the Federation, ‘Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2011 and the Reporting Requirements under Section 29 thereof’, Memorandum (HAGF/MDAS/FOIA/2012/I) issued on 28 Jan. 2012 to all public institutions (Attorney-General’s FOI Act Memorandum).

⁹⁴ The reference to another form here should be taken to mean that the information contained in the original form must be the same as that contained in the form requested, and not a summary of it: Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 55.

⁹⁵ Commentary to Bali Guideline 1, n. 48 above.

⁹⁶ Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-sixth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with Regard to Compliance by Spain, Communication ACCC/C/2008/24’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/8/Add.1, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 70. See also the United Kingdom case of Office of Communications v. Information Commissioner and T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Appeal No. EA/2006/0078, 4 Sept. 2007.

⁹⁷ See Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 2(3).

⁹⁸ Nigeria has about 500 native languages: see R. Blench, An Atlas of Nigerian Languages (3^rd edn, Roger Blench, 2012), available at: http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Africa/Nigeria/Atlas%20of%20Nigerian%20Languages-%20ed%20III.pdf.

⁹⁹ See National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria), ‘The National Literacy Survey’, June 2010, at p. 12, available at: http://resourcedat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/National-Literacy-Survey-2010.pdf.

¹⁰⁰ See O.S. Adegoke et al., ‘Draft Objectives and Strategies for Nigeria’s Agenda 21’, UNDP Support Environment and Natural Resources Management Programme for Nigeria (NIR\C3) (1999), at para. 2.12, available at: http://www.nesrea.org/images/NIGERIA'S%20AGENDA%2021.pdf.

¹⁰¹ Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 3(2).

¹⁰² National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria), n. 99 above.

¹⁰³ Roberts, n. 89 above, at pp. 927–8.

¹⁰⁴ Mmadu, R.A., ‘A Critical Assessment of Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act 2011’ (2011) 1(1) Sacha Journal of Human Rights, pp. 118–47, at 142.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 4(a) and (b).

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., s. 6. This provision, however, is poorly drafted and may be confusing as it incorrectly refers to s. 6 as the provision containing the original time limit rather than s. 4 (which states that it (i.e. s. 4) is ‘subject to section 6’). This requires amendment to avoid unnecessary conflict and to ensure clarity and consistency in line with the common sense position of Art. 3(1) of the Aarhus Convention.

¹⁰⁷ Right to Know, ‘Implementing Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act 2011 – The Journey so Far: A Report on the Level of Awareness, Compliance and Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, 18 Months after its Enactment’ (2012), available at: http://r2knigeria.org/index.php/downloads/foi-assessments-a-reports/doc_view/84-implementing-nigerias-foi-act-2011-the-journey-so-far?tmpl=component&format=raw.

¹⁰⁸ N. 46 above, Guideline 1.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., para. 1.6 (emphasis added). See also Attorney-General’s FOI Act Memorandum, n. 93 above.

¹¹⁰ Generally, the refusal must be effected within 7 days, and at most 14 days, after the application is received (the argument on this time limit in the preceding section applies here). See FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 4.

¹¹¹ ‘The refusal shall be made as soon as possible and at the latest within one month, … [and at most] two months after the request’: see FOI Act, n. 9 above, Art. 4(7).

¹¹² Coppel, P., Information Rights: Law and Practice (3^rd edn, Hart, 2010), at p. 184.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at pp. 56–7.

¹¹⁴ Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 5(1)(a).

¹¹⁵ Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 63.

¹¹⁶ For an attempt to fill this gap see the FOI Act Implementation Guidelines, n. 91 above, Template 1.

¹¹⁷ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 5(1). According to s. 5(3) of the FOI Act, ‘a public institution has “a greater interest” in information if – (a) the information was originally produced in or for the institution; or (b) ... the institution was the first public institution to receive the information’.

¹¹⁸ See Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-third Meeting (Addendum): Findings with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2007/21 Concerning Compliance by the European Community’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 31.

¹¹⁹ Frynas, J.G., ‘Problems of Access to Courts in Nigeria: Results of a Survey of Legal Practitioners’ (2001) 10(3) Social and Legal Studies, pp. 397–419, at 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁰ See Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-eighth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2009/36 Concerning Compliance by Spain’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2010/4/Add.28, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 58; and Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-fifth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/30 Concerning Compliance by the Republic of Moldova’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/6/Add.3, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 39.

¹²¹ Commentary to Guideline 3, n. 48 above.

¹²² See Ziza v. Mamman (2002) 5 Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (part 760) 243, at p. 265.

¹²³ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 18.

¹²⁴ Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 63.

¹²⁵ Commentary to Guideline 3, n. 48 above.

¹²⁶ It is noteworthy that charges for ‘document search’, provided for in the 1999, 2004 and 2007 versions of the FOI Bills, was readily excluded from the FOI Act.

¹²⁷ It is noteworthy that while the 1999, 2004 and 2007 versions of the FOI Bill used the phrase ‘reasonable standard charges’, ‘reasonable’ was carefully excluded from the FOI Act to make way for the public to be charged fully in all instances.

¹²⁸ Bali Guidelines, n. 46 above, Guideline 1. See also Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 65.

¹²⁹ Compliance Committee, ‘Spain, Communication ACCC/C/2008/24’, n. 96 above, paras. 77 and 79.

¹³⁰ ECJ, Case C-217/97, Commission v. Germany [1999] ECR I-5087, para. 48. See Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 258.

¹³¹ See Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Open Government: A Review of the Federal Freedom of Information Act 1982’, Report 77, 1996, paras. 2.11 and 14.2, available at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC77.pdf.

¹³² Information Commissioner of Canada, ‘Annual Report 1993–94’, at p. 9, available at: http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr-ar-ra-archive.aspx.

¹³³ See Mmadu, n. 104 above, at p. 141.

¹³⁴ Australian Law Reform Commission, n. 131 above, para. 14.19.

¹³⁵ Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 65.

¹³⁶ Ibid.

¹³⁷ Ibid.

¹³⁸ N. 91 above, para. 1.11.

¹³⁹ Krämer, n. 6 above, at pp. 95–6.

¹⁴⁰ Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 245.

¹⁴¹ Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Arts. 4(3)-(4) and 5(10).

¹⁴² P. Davies, ‘Public Participation, the Aarhus Convention, and the European Community’, in Zillman, Lucas & Pring (eds), n. 4 above, pp. 155–86, at 162.

¹⁴³ Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 252 (emphasis added).

¹⁴⁴ N. 46 above, Guideline 3.

¹⁴⁵ A position reflected in Principle 6(G) of the Sofia Guidelines on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, ECE/CPE/24, 25 Oct. 1995, which is referred to in the Preamble to the Convention. See also the United Kingdom Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI No. 2004/ 3391), reg. 12(3), and Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SI No. 2004/ 520), regs 10(3) and 11(1).

¹⁴⁶ Ebbesson, Cf. J., ‘The Notion of Public Participation in International Environmental Law’ (1997) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, pp. 51–97, at 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁷ FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 11(1).

¹⁴⁸ Ibid., s. 12(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(vi). For the purpose of s. 12(1)(a), ‘enforcement proceeding’ is defined in s. 12(4).

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., s. 14(1) and (2).

¹⁵⁰ Ibid., s. 15(1)(a).

¹⁵¹ Ibid., s. 15(1)(c).

¹⁵² Ibid., s. 16.

¹⁵³ Ibid., s. 17. It should be noted that the FOI Act does not contain exemptions similar to those in Art. 4(3) (b) and (c) of the Aarhus Convention pertaining to where ‘[t]he request is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner’, and which ‘concerns material in the course of completion or concerns internal communications of public authorities …’, respectively.

¹⁵⁴ See s. 15(3) of the FOI Act, under which public institutions may on their own volition choose to disclose such information.

¹⁵⁵ Available at: http://www.nesrea.org/images/National%20Policy%20on%20Environment.pdf.

¹⁵⁶ Ibid., para. 6.6(f).

¹⁵⁷ See, e.g., FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 11(2).

¹⁵⁸ N. 91 above, para. 1.13.1. FOI Act, s. 16, not elaborated on here, is also one of the unqualified exemptions.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid., paras 1.2. and 12.1.1.

¹⁶¹ Ibid., para. 12.1.1.