|
In an increasing number of countries, the Constitution includes provisions for the environment. That of Bhutan provides particularly strong commitments to the environment (Box 5.8). More often, the provisions tend to be minimal and differ in content, context, clarity and detail. Nevertheless, they (should) provide a (potentially) powerful driver for environmental mainstreaming. Commonly they have one or more of the following elements:
-
The right to a healthy environment (some add other qualifiers, such as “free of contamination” or “ecologically balanced”; In South Africa, for example, Section 24 of the Constitution states that South Africans “have the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being”;
-
A general obligation on the state to protect the environment and/or natural resources
Box 5.8: Environmental commitments in the Constitution of the
Kingdom of Bhutan
Article 5 :Environment
1. Every Bhutanese is a trustee of the Kingdom’s natural resources and environment for the benefit of the present and future generations and it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to contribute to the protection of the natural environment, conservation of the rich biodiversity of Bhutan and prevention of all forms of ecological degradation including noise, visual and physical pollution through the adoption and support of environment friendly practices and policies.
2. The Royal Government shall:
- (a) Protect, conserve and improve the pristine environment and safeguard the biodiversity of the country;
- (b) Prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
- (c) Secure ecologically balanced sustainable development while promoting justifiable economic and
social development; and
- (d) Ensure a safe and healthy environment.
3. The Government shall ensure that, in order to conserve the country’s natural resources and to prevent degradation of the ecosystem, a minimum of sixty percent of Bhutan’s total land shall be maintained under forest cover for all time.
4. Parliament may enact environmental legislation to ensure sustainable use of natural resources and maintain intergenerational equity and reaffirm the sovereign rights of the State over its own biological resources.
5. Parliament may, by law, declare any part of the country to be a National Park, Wildlife Reserve, Nature Reserve, Protected Forest, Biosphere Reserve, Critical Watershed and such other categories meriting protection.
Source: http://www.constitution.bt/ |
Environmental requirements established in legislation provide a key element of the raison d’être for the environmental regulatory, conservation and management departments/agencies of governments (e.g. those responsible for planning, development control and monitoring; the use of safeguards such as EIA [link to EIA tool profile] procedures; and managing key public environmental assets such as forests and protected areas). These responsibilities drive their formal roles as environmental ‘guardians’ or ‘stewards’ to ensure compliance and undertake monitoring.
Formal regimes for physical /spatial/land-used planning are usually perceived as key drivers where a conscious effort is made to pursue environmental mainstreaming, often through requirements to undertake EIAs, for example:
“A government agency such as the Environmental Management Authority (in Trinidad) or the National Environment and Planning Agency (in Jamaica) draws up Terms of Reference [for an EIA] and makes the final decision as to granting the Certificate of Environmental Clearance or equiv`alent. The private developer or government agency leading the project then contracts consultants (typically specialist consultancy firms) who put together a consortium of their own staff and independent consultants to collect and present data in the public consultations.” CANARI (2008)
The development of environmentally-related policies (such as those framing the application of strategic environmental assessments for policies, plans and programmes) also support mainstreaming. But adopting other policies (e.g. to boost tourism where this is a key economic opportunity) can ‘force’ both governments and the tourism sector to protect the environment on which such tourism often depends.
Of course, the public and other stakeholders usually see environmental integration to be, by default, the task of such institutions rather than that of a society-wide effort or organised mainstreaming institutional framework:
“A separate Environmental Ministry was established [in India] with the objective of strengthening the regulatory capacity and supporting specific environmental protection efforts. Although it reinforces environmental protection and conservation as a major priority of the Government, it has led to a faulty perception that addressing environmental issues is the exclusive responsibility of the designated agencies and units.” (Development Alternatives, 2008)
But formal responsibility is not always matched by serious commitment of individuals or institutional effectiveness. In Kenya, for example, “the lack of implementation and enforcement of policies and assessments is limiting the effectiveness of mainstreaming” (Sanford and Vijge, 2008).
In almost all countries, the need to comply with legislation, regulations, standards and limits is a strong motivation for addressing environmental issues – particularly amongst businesses and industries. Where national policy has changed at the top to require an integrated approach, this can lead to significant innovation. For example, national development planning in Tanzania moved from a ‘priority sectors’ approach, which neither included environment as a sector nor was amenable to environmental intervention, to an ‘outcomes-based planning’ approach. The latter put aside presumptions about priority sectors and enabled environmental interests – both government and private – to show what they could contribute to outcomes such as economic growth, improved health, etc. Furthermore, this led to a public environmental expenditure review that examined how much each sector was investing in the environment in relation to likely returns and costs of inaction. It is perhaps no coincidence that the budget of the environment authorities in the subsequent financial year quadrupled (Assey et al., 2007).
|
