Environmental Democracy & Empowerment of the Rakyat

As countries in the northern hemisphere await the appearance of green buds, singing birds and blossoming flowers that usually accompanies the vernal equinox, many are still finding themselves trapped in snow storms and freezing temperatures. It is officially Spring here in London, but as a result of what scientists have identified as a “dramatic loss” of the Arctic sea, weather analysts are forecasting that the cold weather we are experiencing might last until the end of April.

While I warm myself up to a cup of English tea during this cold Easter holiday, I would like to discuss a bit about the subject of environmental democracy that closely relates to the topic of my current research. The research topic that I am pursuing as part of my Ph.D focuses on environmental access rights in Malaysia - a result of my interest in the dynamic role of environmental governance in sustainable development and how it ties in with notions of democracy. My curiosity and fascination in the subject was what led me to investigate further into Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and the ongoing global "hybrid" movement that is seemingly combining the demands for environmental sustainability, good governance, democracy, and freedom of information.

Academic literature, reports, news articles, and other various sources of information have expressed a general consensus that a strong governance structure is important in achieving sustainable development, and especially in tackling the challenges faced in environmental deterioration. Envisioned in a good, strong, efficient form of governance is, among other characteristics, transparent, participatory, inclusive, and accountable. These characteristics are also considered to be part of the core components of environmental democracy.

According to Darrell Whitman, “[t]he decline in public confidence in environmental policy-making at the end of the twentieth century has been said to follow from its inability to be clear, consistent, and democratic”. For now, I will not delve into the debates surrounding the various definitions of democracy and good governance to explain what environmental democracy entails. What I wish to point out here is the fact that the concept supports the involvement of citizens on all levels and sectors in environmental decision-making.

Local citizens are arguably the ones who will be most likely affected by changes in their natural environment as a result of decisions made and the policies implemented through governance structures as well as institutional frameworks. Hence, it is vital that they be given opportunities for their voices to be heard, and to effectively participate in the decision-making process. This is believed to contribute to better implementation of environmental policies and public cooperation. Empowering the people through environmental democracy would include, for example, providing access to information and scientific knowledge that the people are able to understand, allowing them to deliver their insights on development projects that affect their community, and providing them with proper channels and guidance on how to seek judicial remedy when their environment has suffered negative impacts.

Source: http://www.grinnell.edu

According to Dr. Susan Hazen, environmental democracy "reflects increasing recognition that environmental issues must be addressed by all those affected by their outcome, not just by governments and industrial sectors. It captures the principle of equal rights for all those in the environment debate - including the public, community groups, advocates, industrial leaders, workers, governments, academics and health care professionals. For those whose daily lives reflect the quality of their environment, participation in environmental decision-making is as important as in education, health care, finance and government".

As a whole, providing the people, or as we say in Malaysia, the rakyat*, with a chance to effectively participate in environmental democracy means that individuals can take measures to protect their health and environment, assist in preventing unsustainable exploitation of the nation’s natural resources, and cooperate with authorities in identifying polluters and holding them accountable. By doing so, the rakyat can contribute in helping to mitigate environmental risks while providing valuable feedback in the formulation and implementation of environmental policies, thereby contributing to the country’s (sustainable) development plans for the long term.

Of course, essential in the creation of sound policies are also technical and scientific expertise. However, decisions should not be solely based on technocratic knowledge. As Makuch and Pereira points out in Environmental and Energy Law (2012), “the course of environmental law and policy cannot be defined only by science. Indeed, defining the level of environmental protection is a function of many considerations and factors, and includes the concerns of other experts (e.g. economists, lawyers), regulators, corporations, lobbyist groups and lay people with no background in science”.

I will not go further into this particular debate, but will note here that while some critics may argue on lay citizens not having enough knowledge to effectively participate in the decision-making process, there are also those who assert that the process of public participation in itself can lead to a sense of ownership in the final decision made. Therefore, even when opinions of lay individuals are rejected or disagreed on, what seems to be more important is for people to feel that they were consulted, given an opportunity to be heard, and for their opinions to be taken into serious consideration. As Steven Berstein explains, “transparency, participation, accountability in rule-making, and adequate resources to enable participation produce a sense of ‘ownership’, which links decision-making and outcomes of a governance scheme to the communities that authorize it, and over which it is granted authority.” 

Additionally, the United Kingdom Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions states in its good practice handbook, The Aarhus Convention Newcastle Workshop (2000) that “[r]egular public participation shows people that they are valued and that their views are important. These exercises build trust and confidence in the authority undertaking the exercise and demonstrate to the public that change is possible. Individuals and community groups can become more active and more responsible for their environment and quality of life. People can feel more part of a community and authorities can make better relationships with these communities which continue after the decision has been taken. Participation exercises can build confidence to undertake other initiatives, help give the public the skills to do so and generate enough enthusiasm to complete the initiative”.

This idea of building “confidence” and “trust” also seems to be an essential element in development and good environmental governance, and has been emphasised in some discussions on environmental democracy as it highlights the relationship and cooperation between government and citizens. Paul Lachappelle (2008) uses examples from Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer’s findings, explaining that “[t]here is general agreement that trust in community development has the potential to enhance individual or group learning, build relationships between citizens, improve relations with government, influence creative solutions, teach citizenship, inculcate civic virtue, allow dialogue to flourish, promote fairness in procedural efforts, reduce conflict, validate multiple forms of knowledge, and facilitate effective responses to future crises (Rousseau et al., 1998)”.

UNECE countries that signed and ratified the Aarhus Convention, which is often seen as the global manifestation of Principle 10, have yet to perfectly integrate the Convention into frameworks of national legislation. Nevertheless, great strides have been made and there have been some success stories, as Jerzy Jendrozka explains in Aarhus Convention: Towards a New Era in Granting Individual Rights in International Environmental Law, “Countries that have decided to grant the public broad information and participation rights and consequential access to environmental justice have benefitted a lot from voluntary activities of their citizens willing to protect the environment.”

The ongoing 1Malaysia concept was introduced 

in 2009 to promote national unity and tolerance.

Its first slogan was translated in English as 

"People First, Performance Now"

Considering the ongoing environmental issues faced in Malaysia, and the challenges that have yet to be overcome in the political scenario and institutional frameworks, another hurdle in fostering environmental democracy in Malaysia would be how to achieve citizen participation in practice to a degree and manner that is useful and effective in environmental decision-making. Interestingly, Yale Professor, Ben Cashore, states that the fundamental question is not so much “whether or not democracy is good for the environment, but rather how democratic institutions at all levels can be designed to effectively address the environmental crisis facing our planet”. 

In Malaysia’s quest for Vision 2020, environmental democracy could possibly play a significant role in supporting innovation, economic growth, and a knowledge-based society that the nation is aspiring to achieve. Plus, it appears to be in line with the Government’s recent transformation agenda that is people-centered and emphasises on inclusivity. If well nurtured, it would indeed be one step in empowering the rakyat, raising environmental awareness and action, improving environmental governance and implementation of policies, and fostering environmental access rights in the country.

*The word "rakyat" in Bahasa Melayu refers to "citizens" or "the people".