Home 
Publications Catalog Online Publications Document
Asian Environment Outlook 2001 : IV. Toward Policy Integration
GovernanceThe preceding sections of this chapter lay out a framework for co-optimizing economic and environmental performance within the Asia and Pacific region. It is obvious that the scale and scope of changes required is large. Such changes will not occur without a broad-based constituency for reform and unless effective and durable institutions are created. Thus, good governance is the bedrock of policy integration. It is critical for the institutions of governance in the Asia and Pacific region to actualize the principles of transparent, participatory, and inclusive decision making. Policy integration will require a multitude of important and sometimes controversial decisions to be made, such as raising resource prices, closing a highly polluting factory, ending farming in a degraded area, and acceding to international jurisdiction on issues of trade regulation. Support for such decision making will only be sustained to the extent that the criteria upon which the decisions were made are well understood and identified through a participatory process and to the extent that actions are made equitably and consistently in line with these criteria. This requires strong participatory institutions of governance at all scales — local, regional, and international. Good governance begins with strong and effective institutions, including both government agencies and institutions of civil society. Governments will remain central in developing and implementing environmental policy for the foreseeable future. Many Asian and Pacific countries have a long way to go in terms of putting effective administrative institutions into place. Institutions are often poorly resourced and lack a strong tradition of rule-based behavior and systematic implementation of policies. Capacity building remains a critical priority, especially at the local level. Over the past 10 years, there has been considerable investment in building the capacity of environmental institutions in Asia and not as much on the regional or local governments. These investments have centered on establishing national capacity to implement the EIA requirements of donor-funded projects as well as domestic investments covered by EIA legislation. Oversight capacity for these assessments has been established in national environmental agencies and in some special units established within line ministries. Significant investments have also been made to develop expertise in pollution control, natural resource management, and regional and global issues. Except for the preparation and passage of national environmental laws, the legislative branch of Asian and Pacific governments has yet to play any significant role in environmental management. Many national legislatures have committees that are expected to deal with environmental issues, but legislators tend to be ill-informed and rarely have qualified staff to deal with these matters (university experts partially fill these gaps in some countries). The problem is even more pronounced at the subnational and local levels, where legislative and consultative institutions remain weak and environmental issues are seldom given high priority. In addition to the improvements for the executive branch of government in order to strengthen environmental management, changes also can be expected in judicial, legislative, and civil society institutions. The varied histories of Asian and Pacific countries have resulted in a diversity of institutional arrangements in the judicial branch of government. Authority for the prosecution of both criminal and civil violations of environmental statutes is commonly vested in national police forces and courts. Prosecution staff and judges generally remain ill-informed with regard to environmental matters, and coordination between police and environmental agencies is very weak. Despite continuing weaknesses, India's Supreme Court is an outstanding example of constructive engagement on environmental questions. In some cases, environmental agencies or line ministries maintain inspectors and guard forces that complement and sometimes overlap the work of the judiciary. Corruption remains a significant problem in the enforcement of environmental statutes by the judicial branch of government. No single initiative is of greater importance than that of strengthening the participation of civil society in environmental governance. The role of civil society in forcing environmental issues onto national policy agendas, changing societal behavior, and engendering a new environmental consciousness in Asia is multifarious and far-reaching. Certainly, the nature of the environmental crisis facing the Asia and Pacific region demands an extraordinary response beyond the normal incremental changes associated with a "business-as-usual" attitude. It is in the interest of all governments to capitalize on the collective intelligence, ingenuity, and expertise of the community. To do this, governments need to understand the roles that civil society can play, overcome their fear of losing control, and understand the consequences of failing to include civil society in the decision making process. Civil society can play an increasing role in overcoming a number of obstacles faced by government in pursuing a framework of policy integration, including the lack of political will, fiscal constraints, pervasive corruption and cronyism, lack of technical and regulatory capacity, and competitive pressures of globalization (see Box 4-7). Civil society should be empowered to participate in planning decisions, either through involvement in environmental clearances required prior to decisions being made (such as through the EIA process) or subsequently through a planning appeals process.
Regulations on information disclosure need to be extended so that civil society can be knowledgeable participants in decision making (see Box 4-8). Institutionalizing public participation affords governments a wider range of views to consider and may be crucial for building community consensus on controversial decisions. Environmental groups can assist the government in desig ning and implementing participatory processes that facilitate policy integration between and within various sectors.
An important rationale for adjustments in the region's environmental institutions derives from rising demands for greater transparency and accountability in governance systems. Rising demand in the region for governance improvements should bode well for the creation of better underlying conditions to support sound environmental management. Recent cross-country comparisons show a strong relationship between environmental quality, national income levels, security of property rights, and the development and implementation of sound legal and regulatory systems. Findings also highlight the importance of strong national institutions in achieving higher levels of environmental quality. A country's degree of private property protection, the effectiveness of its legal and judicial systems, and the efficiency of its public administration systems all have been shown to be important in explaining good national environmental performance. A related development across the region is the clear trend toward the decentralization of government functions. In a growing number of countries, central government authorities are transferring responsibilities to provincial, state, local, and city governments. Because most urban environmental challenges can only be effectively addressed by local authorities, decentralization should help transfer responsibility for management closer to those who stand to directly benefit. Decentralization should also encourage the empowerment and re-establishment of community-based resource management institutions. Such traditional institutions often have shown themselves better capable of sustainably managing local resources than externally advocated or imposed practices.
|
| © 2008 Asian Development Bank Privacy | Terms of Use |
 Top of page |
Back