|
Environment tends to be treated as an externality in institutions – it is unowned, unscrutinised, and often unprotected. It is similarly external to prevailing economic systems – environmental assets are largely unvalued, unpriced, and unmarketed. Even within public discourse, environment may be seen as a separate issue – environmental stakeholders often come across with a confused mix of ‘values’ and science, with specialised language, and often a ‘can’t-do’ approach which is not compelling to those interested in development. All of this presents both a clear rationale for mainstreaming and some heavy barriers to it.
The problem of lack of political will can be linked to another pervasive problem – the widespread lack of understanding and awareness of the importance of the environment amongst many actors: its key role in underpinning development (see section 1.2).
“Both the general public and policy-makers do not understand or are not aware of environmental issues in the country” [Kenya].
(Sandford & Vijge, 2008)
Some of those interviewed (e.g. in South Africa) believed that if people understood the nature of the environmental problem, their values would change and other constraints would fall away, whilst others felt that people did understand the issues, but were motivated by other interests and agendas (DBSA 2008). This signals a continuing need to invest in environmental education and awareness-raising.
A related issue is that many leaders and decision-takers hold the view that the environment cannot take priority over other concerns perceived to be ‘more pressing’ such as job creation or poverty alleviation (as evidence from South Africa shows – see Box 5.4) – even though achieving such goals is often closely linked to sound environmental management.
Box 5.4: Divergent views on environmental mainstreaming in South Africa
A survey of stakeholder perspectives in South African highlighted major divergences amongst South Africans on world views and values concerning environmental mainstreaming, e.g.
- A prevailing view amongst many people interviewed was that short-term economic growth/job creation must have overarching priority over environmental management, if past inequalities are to be addressed and if poverty is to be eradicated. Once every one becomes rich it will be socially acceptable to consider the environment. It was otherwise felt to be abhorrent that people valued ecosystems and their services whilst others suffered in poverty. The link between these was not perceived.
“Poverty and unemployment: there is high demand to deliver services to the people despite the pressure on the environment. Environment mainstreaming is considered secondary to delivery of services. Environment receives attention only when there is guarantee that it will bring about eco-tourism development. Politicians argue that they can not afford to look after butterflies and frogs while people are starving. In cases such as mining versus tourism, for example, mining is considered because it will bring quick physical delivery. The extent of poverty in rural areas makes it impossible to consider the environment –the focus tends to be on job creation or development as opposed to environmental protection or mainstreaming. Lack of understanding of environmental systems is another problem; people tend to focus on the social context rather than the environmental context”
Gabs Gabula, South Africa
-
A small minority group felt social, environmental and economic aspects of development could not be separated nor one aspect prioritised over another. Social justice and building a healthy society was strongly dependent on holistic, systems thinking and applying sustainable development principles in practice.
-
An even smaller group felt that sustainable development and many of its associated goals were no longer an option. The need is to ensure, as far as possible, that future generations are not deprived of essential ecosystems services as a result of current unsustainable developments.
-
Many people interviewed felt strongly that for any tool to be successfully applied, it must be able to demonstrate a strong link with national priorities such as job creation, poverty alleviation and HIV/AIDS.
Source: DBSA (2008) |
Many environmental practitioners in business, community and government interviewed in South Africa held the view that poverty reduction and environmental management are incompatible goals. A similar view was expressed in Kenya:
“With poverty, the need to put food on the table often overrides environmental traditions and consciousness. Concern for the environment tends to decrease with poverty”
(John Nyangena, Senior Economist, Ministry of Planning & National
National Development, Kenya, quoted in Sandford & Vijge, 2008)
In Viet Nam, politicians have expressed environmental sustainability as a goal to be addressed when middle-income country status is achieved – dirty development for big gains today, and then clean up later when the country can ‘afford’ it. This approach ignores health and livelihood problems during that period of ‘dirty development’ and the irreversible environmental losses which cannot be recovered later, such as in biodiversity.
But an alternative view was that it was impossible to separate the environmental, social and economic aspects of development, and to do so is dangerous as it involves prioritising one over the others.
A few people are of the opinion that the environment doesn’t actually matter in either the short or long term. They see expressions of concern about the environment as unimportant or overstated and tend to ignore or dismiss reports highlighting negative trends (even when backed by solid evidence, and commanding widespread consensus). In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how environmental assessments such as EIA or SEA, even when mandatory, are likely to influence opinions and judgements. Clearly much remains to be done to persuade such people of the need to reassess their positions and to change their mindsets. This is particularly the case in countries where the leadership tends to be elderly, and educated at a time when environmental issues were not on the curriculum:
“Many of the environmental mainstreaming tools…first require a change in values
and mindsets at a leadership level before they will be used to their full potential”
(DBSA, 2008)
“For effective environmental mainstreaming, a conceptual shift is required to ensure that this goal should be a primary objective of the development process rather than a mere compliance with environmental standards.
(Development Alternatives, 2008)
When this is exacerbated by markets excluding environmental costs, there is very little in terms of everyday investment, production and consumption decisions to encourage a consideration of the environment – it is shunted towards being a ‘niche’, voluntary issue.
|
