|
|
Johannesburg, August (GYRP) – What is environmental democracy?
At one of the WSSD's first side events, The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe organised a sharing session on the successes of participatory democracy and good governance, in working towards sustainable development. In order to better understand these, and related, concepts, here are some excerpts from an interview with:
Alexander Juras, Deputy Executive Director of The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe.
What exactly is environmental democracy?
Environmental democracy is about the democratic right of people to participate in all decisions with an effect on the environment -- business decisions, decisions in the field of transport, political decisions regarding new legislation which affect the environment. It offers citizens the possibility to participate. ... In the traditional system of representative democracy, other than through elections, there is no way for the public to influence decisions. Especially with things so complex, and with so many issues at stake, elections are not enough. Other slots, windows and opportunities are needed to influence the decision process.
A lot has been said about the "bottom-up" approach with environmental democracies, about involving more of the general populace in the decision-making process. However, in countries currently making the transition from being a command economy to a market economy, and which have a reputation for low literacy levels, how can one attempt to promote awareness when the issue of basic education has yet to be addressed? Is that not jumping the gun?
In Central and Eastern Europe, this is not really an issue: the people are educated ... the system is highly developed. It is different in South Africa, of course, but in Central and Eastern Europe, illiteracy is not an issue, it is really minor.
Public awareness, although I understand its complex nature, is primarily about getting information. In many countries, environmental information is treated as a state secret. It is hard to participate and build sound opinions when you do not know. ... For the development of public participation, information has to be provided on the environment and state. With respect to raising awareness, schools could teach people how the environment functions, what are the impacts of taking different decisions...
Do you think there's a case for the external imposition of change, when there is a resistance to the transition towards environmental democracy?
That is not needed. You cannot force it. There has to be a strong belief that it is useful, and not through imposing international conventions on a country that does not understand the principles. They need to, by themselves, come to the conclusion that it is useful, then they will care for the future of the environment.
Institutions should offer possibilities, but not impose. They could share experiences and have people get to know more, through training and travel. Then something could happen in their heads, about what we should be doing. Because Third World and post-colonial countries are especially sensitive to developed countries coming in, and you could end up achieving the opposite of what you had intended.
However, some environmental issues are very pressing. If we were to leave countries to slowly come to their senses about the benefits of environmental democracy, might it be too late?
It is hard, and is a problem in the West. Unfortunately, sometimes it is only when environmental pressure is so big, that people cannot stand it, that something is done. In Europe, real progress with nuclear safety only happened because of Chernobyl, and is was only after the Sanoz accident that affected the Rhine River in the 80s, that there was major progress in water and river protection. But that is the wrong approach, to only have real notice, real progress when the environmental problem becomes so pressing, that you have to do something.
The only thing, is to make people aware. People should have to see the benefits ... we need to make them understand what there is to gain. For example, with Third World developing countries, we could link environmental protection with business opportunities. Like with projects here in South Africa that engage the local community in the protection of national parks, and let them gain, from ecotourism, and job opportunities in park administration, and many other jobs. Apart from environmental awareness, the people also get out something. When the economic situation is bad, people do care about the environment. The environmental solution has to be something about economic sustainable development. In the end, it has to go hand in hand.
While we are on the point of economic development, another focus at this Summit, has been about including private enterprises in the course of events. But commercial entities have, as one of their top priorities, the protection of short-term profit margins. Also, often, big businesses have the economic clout to circumvent government regulations for their own ends, like in the case of the car industry and the fuel efficiency levels of engines. Bearing this in mind, can we indeed rely on businesses to work towards sustainable development?
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Natalie Morris
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
