The most frequently mentioned constraint to environmental mainstreaming is the lack of political will to look at longer-term needs and ensure environmental responsibility in decision-making. This derives partly from many politicians’ lack of concern for the environment, reflecting the fact that environment is not a priority for many electorates, e.g. in Kenya (Sandford & Vijge, 2008); and partly the fact that some political leaders give precedence to personal preferences over national ones (CANARI 2008) most tending to focus on the short-term (what can be delivered by the next election). Politicians and senior decision-takers tend to be concerned mainly with achieving economic growth (a. above):

“Political leaders, in general, still have a ‘zero sum’ approach to the environment: protecting it is expensive and might be to the detriment of development…To date, Chilean political leaders, irrespective of their orientation, have generally shown very little concern for sustainable development or environmental mainstreaming. What undoubtedly dominates the political agenda is economic growth” (RIDES, 2008).

Thus the environment is often perceived as a negative factor - a ‘green brake’ on development. In Uganda, a NEMA District Support Officer commented that “the success of [mainstreaming] tools depends on commitment and attitude since most people view environment as ‘anti-development’ “. (quoted in Birungi, 2008),

This reality can be masked by ‘green speeches’ made by politicians that promise action (that is rarely delivered). For example:

“The UK has to ‘go green’ in the face of rises in oil prices and the cost of living, protecting the environment is a ‘necessity’ and not a ‘luxury’ that can only be afforded in the good times”

Speech to environmentalists by UK Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, 16 June 2008.

Once out of office, politicians amazingly are able to see the problem. In a recent article in a UK newspaper, former Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote:

“In the long-term, everyone accepts that the needs of the economy and the environment are in partnership. In the short-term, there is tension. And we live in the short term”

“A climate solution is in reach”, Article by Tony Blair in the Sunday Times, 23, 29 June 2008

Politically, the long term is just one persistent chain of shorter terms. It is no surprise, therefore, that difficult trade-offs between environmental needs and economic expansion are consistently avoided.

In many developing countries, there has been opposition to the concept of environmental mainstreaming. Sometimes this is regarded as a Northern-driven aid conditionality. This is reflected clearly by the negative attitude for more than a decade towards the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which has been viewed as a donor-dominated initiative that does little to address their development needs. Although developing countries are least able to endure the consequences of global environmental deterioration, environmental mainstreaming is often perceived as both an imposition and a threat to their development (Horta, 1998).

Elsewhere (e.g. Caribbean, Kenya, Philippines) the concept of environmental mainstreaming is not widely used or understood, even though it may be inherent in local culture:

[Environmental mainstreaming] “is not concrete and it is difficult to measure results…People need to understand that these approaches are being used for their own benefit”

(Sampson Waso, Economist at the Ministry of Planning and National
Development, Kenya. quoted in Sandford & Vijge, 2008)

 

”One reason is that it is being introduced as a new concept from abroad and not well translated locally. However, it can be seen happening naturally all over the country. It is easily understood once stories of local practices and experiences are told”. (Earth Council/ICLEI, 2008).

In contrast, in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic), there is a strong demand to strengthen environmental mainstreaming in planning and decision-making and, in others (e.g. Croatia), the ‘traditional’ understanding is that “taking care of the environment is a task for the environmental authorities, which is then reflected in the practice of most institutions” (Integra, 2008). In these countries, there is a strong tradition in land use and spatial planning. But producing a good plan alone is no guarantee of success:

“Even the ‘best plan ever’, perfectly integrating relevant environmental issues doesn’t automatically mean that real changes will follow in the territory or sector, if not supported by the political representatives and leaders.” (Integra, 2008)