Post by tuamkc on Jun 24, 2015 8:56:40 GMT 8
Wildlife Matters - Good governance key to green growth
Posted on 22 June 2015 - 07:06pm
Last updated on 22 June 2015 - 07:16pm
Preetha Sankar
Print
"GREEN growth will be the game changer in bringing Malaysia towards a sustainable socio-economic development path, where improvements in quality of life are in harmony with the sustainability of the environment and natural resources," says the newly minted 11th Malaysia Plan under Chapter 6 which is dedicated to "green growth" pathways to 2020.
To me the term "green growth" (at least in the context of the plan) is a cosmetic expression as it merely indicates a semantic change to what is fundamentally the decades old concept of sustainable development. Chapter 6 identifies four key focus areas which include:
Focus area A: Strengthening the enabling environment for green growth;
Focus area B: Adopting the sustainable consumption and production concept;
Focus area C: Conserving natural resources for present and future generations; and
Focus area D: Strengthening resilience against climate change and natural disasters.
I don't have the luxury of space to do a full blown analysis of Chapter 6, so this article provides my humble take on Focus area A. I was elated to read that the plan addresses the issue of governance under Strategy A1 which intends to "strengthen governance that will drive transformation". The elation didn't last however; as "governance strengthening" appears to be focussed on policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks that mainly encourage industries to shift to green products, services and technology. There are some references to other governance aspects such as improving policies and regulation, enhancing capacity and instituting numerous committees and centres, but candidly speaking, they appear token in nature and simply don't go far enough.
What is key and what will be truly transformational is for policymakers to acknowledge that governance is inherently about "good governance" and no less crucial to creating enabling environments. Good governance in the environmental context has to be demonstrated by putting into practice key attributes. These include (but not limited to):
i) Transparency – what factors underscore transparency in environmental decision making? Essentially, this rests on free access to accurate and timely environmental information. Transparency isn't limited to merely access to such information and requirements to disclose, but encompasses access to environmental decision making processes. Zero access or limited access severely restricts our ability as a society to judge and scrutinise the legitimacy of decisions that ultimately impact us.
ii) accountability – The plan makes no reference to improving accountability in environmental decision making and management. Many of the initiatives under the 11th Plan aren't entirely new; many similar intentions were expressed in the 9th and 10th Malaysia Plans; and remain largely unimplemented. Who do we hold responsible for the failure to implement? Several government agencies at various levels act as custodians of our natural resources, so any action or inaction that leads to negative results for the environment must be subject to recourse. We need frameworks that truly entrench accountability. Complex no doubt, but necessary.
To bring home the point, just last month, the US-based World Resources Institute released its 2014 survey on the Environmental Democracy Index (EDI). The survey leads to an assessment of progress made by a nation in instituting laws that promote transparency, accountability and public engagement in environmental matters; known collectively as environmental democracy laws. How did we fare? Well, Malaysia was ranked 69th out of the 70 countries that were surveyed. There isn't a need to say anything more beyond that.
While Strategy A1 also talks about strengthening relevant policies and legislation, the overall narrative omits details that would enlighten readers as to what we hope to "strengthen". The plan slips into over generalisation too frequently and this doesn't augur well as a basis for action during the plan period. What would have been welcomed, especially in the good governance context, is to strengthen our environmental legal framework by incorporating well established environmental principles. Malaysia is no stranger to these concepts by virtue of being a party to numerous environmental treaties that have well espoused various environmental principles. These include the use of the precautionary principle in environmental decision making, access to environmental information, requirements for effective, meaningful and mandatory public participation as well as elements that decentralise environmental decision making.
Time and again, and it is no different under the 11th Plan, we see references to strengthening the institutional framework. Continuous institutional improvements that improve efficacy and capacity to respond to environmental issues (current and emerging) are standards to certainly strive for. However, overly simplistic declarations of intention such as "coordination and collaboration amongst relevant ministries and agencies particularly at the federal and state levels will also be strengthened" connotes that we have seemingly failed at implementing even the most basic coordination mechanisms that attain national environmental objectives. Striving towards excellence by 2020 would require environmental agenda coordination to be such that substantive commitment to action by all levels and sectors of government is firmly secured under each plan period. Good coordination necessitates the creation of efficient pathways that mobilise action, expertise and resources where it is crucially needed. Basic rhetorical statements about the need for institutional coordination "strengthening" without specific details on how and what is to be achieved inspires very little.
The 11th Malaysia Plan is peppered with the term "game-changer". Chapter 6 certainly deviates from the norm in that a whole chapter is dedicated to green growth as a key strategic thrust. While I applaud the stance, regrettably, the strategies for strengthening governance are far from transformational. I remain hopeful that more concrete, meaningful and specific strategies are outlined in the days and months to come. It's not too late in the game to do so.
Preetha is an advocate and solicitor. She has spent many years in the environmental conservation arena. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
Posted on 22 June 2015 - 07:06pm
Last updated on 22 June 2015 - 07:16pm
Preetha Sankar
"GREEN growth will be the game changer in bringing Malaysia towards a sustainable socio-economic development path, where improvements in quality of life are in harmony with the sustainability of the environment and natural resources," says the newly minted 11th Malaysia Plan under Chapter 6 which is dedicated to "green growth" pathways to 2020.
To me the term "green growth" (at least in the context of the plan) is a cosmetic expression as it merely indicates a semantic change to what is fundamentally the decades old concept of sustainable development. Chapter 6 identifies four key focus areas which include:
Focus area A: Strengthening the enabling environment for green growth;
Focus area B: Adopting the sustainable consumption and production concept;
Focus area C: Conserving natural resources for present and future generations; and
Focus area D: Strengthening resilience against climate change and natural disasters.
I don't have the luxury of space to do a full blown analysis of Chapter 6, so this article provides my humble take on Focus area A. I was elated to read that the plan addresses the issue of governance under Strategy A1 which intends to "strengthen governance that will drive transformation". The elation didn't last however; as "governance strengthening" appears to be focussed on policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks that mainly encourage industries to shift to green products, services and technology. There are some references to other governance aspects such as improving policies and regulation, enhancing capacity and instituting numerous committees and centres, but candidly speaking, they appear token in nature and simply don't go far enough.
What is key and what will be truly transformational is for policymakers to acknowledge that governance is inherently about "good governance" and no less crucial to creating enabling environments. Good governance in the environmental context has to be demonstrated by putting into practice key attributes. These include (but not limited to):
i) Transparency – what factors underscore transparency in environmental decision making? Essentially, this rests on free access to accurate and timely environmental information. Transparency isn't limited to merely access to such information and requirements to disclose, but encompasses access to environmental decision making processes. Zero access or limited access severely restricts our ability as a society to judge and scrutinise the legitimacy of decisions that ultimately impact us.
ii) accountability – The plan makes no reference to improving accountability in environmental decision making and management. Many of the initiatives under the 11th Plan aren't entirely new; many similar intentions were expressed in the 9th and 10th Malaysia Plans; and remain largely unimplemented. Who do we hold responsible for the failure to implement? Several government agencies at various levels act as custodians of our natural resources, so any action or inaction that leads to negative results for the environment must be subject to recourse. We need frameworks that truly entrench accountability. Complex no doubt, but necessary.
To bring home the point, just last month, the US-based World Resources Institute released its 2014 survey on the Environmental Democracy Index (EDI). The survey leads to an assessment of progress made by a nation in instituting laws that promote transparency, accountability and public engagement in environmental matters; known collectively as environmental democracy laws. How did we fare? Well, Malaysia was ranked 69th out of the 70 countries that were surveyed. There isn't a need to say anything more beyond that.
While Strategy A1 also talks about strengthening relevant policies and legislation, the overall narrative omits details that would enlighten readers as to what we hope to "strengthen". The plan slips into over generalisation too frequently and this doesn't augur well as a basis for action during the plan period. What would have been welcomed, especially in the good governance context, is to strengthen our environmental legal framework by incorporating well established environmental principles. Malaysia is no stranger to these concepts by virtue of being a party to numerous environmental treaties that have well espoused various environmental principles. These include the use of the precautionary principle in environmental decision making, access to environmental information, requirements for effective, meaningful and mandatory public participation as well as elements that decentralise environmental decision making.
Time and again, and it is no different under the 11th Plan, we see references to strengthening the institutional framework. Continuous institutional improvements that improve efficacy and capacity to respond to environmental issues (current and emerging) are standards to certainly strive for. However, overly simplistic declarations of intention such as "coordination and collaboration amongst relevant ministries and agencies particularly at the federal and state levels will also be strengthened" connotes that we have seemingly failed at implementing even the most basic coordination mechanisms that attain national environmental objectives. Striving towards excellence by 2020 would require environmental agenda coordination to be such that substantive commitment to action by all levels and sectors of government is firmly secured under each plan period. Good coordination necessitates the creation of efficient pathways that mobilise action, expertise and resources where it is crucially needed. Basic rhetorical statements about the need for institutional coordination "strengthening" without specific details on how and what is to be achieved inspires very little.
The 11th Malaysia Plan is peppered with the term "game-changer". Chapter 6 certainly deviates from the norm in that a whole chapter is dedicated to green growth as a key strategic thrust. While I applaud the stance, regrettably, the strategies for strengthening governance are far from transformational. I remain hopeful that more concrete, meaningful and specific strategies are outlined in the days and months to come. It's not too late in the game to do so.
Preetha is an advocate and solicitor. She has spent many years in the environmental conservation arena. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com