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.
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".
