Definition of ‘Environmental Governance’ Revisited

Posted by Walker on Aug 1, 2011 in Environmental Governance | 0 comments

You know those moments when you are at a social event and get introduced to a stranger for the first time? It is almost inevitable thaht the conversation will turn to career and personal interests.

What do you do?

I’m a consultant and an avid enthusiast in environmental governance issues.

Wow. That sounds really (ahem) interesting! Excuse me while I bury my head in the sand.



Yes, that is the point at which my new acquaintance tends to lose interest in this new conversation. Now, I’m pretty sure it’s not me personally that causes this haze of boredom in the poor fellow’s eyes. I don’t have a monotone voice like the professor in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (played spectacularly by Ben Stein) which would cause my audience to fall asleep.

No, I’m afraid the culprit is often the words “environmental” and “governance” put together. Environmental governance. Did your eyelids just close a notch? If they did, you are not alone. It seems that environmental governance is a poorly understood topic which rarely gets discussed at parties, social gatherings, or just about anywhere for that matter. But don’t let that fool you. Environmental governance is one of the most important and crucial topics of our time. But what exactly is it?

Well, like most words in our modern lexicon, there are varying definitions of environmental governance. Is it fair to just dissect the words at their most basic, and call environmental governance the ‘process of governing the environment and those issues associated with the environment’? Well, let’s take a look at how some other use the term ‘environmental governance’:

Wallace Partners, an advisory firm, says on their website that “environmental governance is where sustainability performance and traditional corporate governance intersect”. Great! Perfect topic then, for the Convergence Journal. But this definition is actually much narrower than other definitions because it has limited the scope to corporate governance alone. Surely more other stakeholders beyond corporations have an interest and stake in how the environment is governed!

Wikipedia sums up environmental governance as “a concept in political ecology or environmental policy related to defining the elements needed to achieve sustainability.” That seems more acceptable for the academic or research associate, but in turn drops off the corporate governance aspect. And, of course, civil society… where are the people?!

On a post titled Definition of Environmental Governance, Prof. Ebinezer R. Florano of the EcoGov blog states that “There are many definitions but I found them all wanting”, and goes on to formulate a fantastic definition:

“ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE can be defined or characterized as: Multi-level interactions (i.e., local, national, international/global) among, but not limited to, three main actors, i.e., state, market, and civil society, which interact with one another, whether in formal and informal ways; in formulating and implementing policies in response to environment-related demands and inputs from the society; bound by rules, procedures, processes, and widely-accepted behavior; possessing characteristics of “good governance”; for the purpose of attaining environmentally-sustainable development.” – Prof. E.R. Florano, University of the Philippines

Of the three, I feel that Prof. Florano’s definition is by far the most accurate and complete with respect to how the term “environmental governance” is used by academics, policy makers, and the environmental community interested in governance issues. It’s ironic that Prof. Florano opened his post by confessing that he found all other definitions “wanting”; I sense that many others (you, maybe?) agree with Prof. Florano, which is part of the reason why my acquaintance at the cocktail party zoned out when the idea of environmental governance is raised — because the very sound of it (and indeed, the usage of it) — is nuanced, complex and wanting.

Still, as spot on as Prof. Florano’s definition may be, it is still complex and lengthy for the average person with no background in environmental policy. Many topics are nested in the definition: “sustainable development” (and everyone agrees on what ‘sustainable’ means, right? Wrong), “society”; “widely-accepted behavior”; and of course, “good governance”. All of these terms are rife with their own debatable definitions. Can’t we follow the straight talk of the second century Greek satirist, Lucian, and just call “a fig a fig and a boat a boat” and leave it at that? Perhaps. It would serve the environmental governance community well to proceed with a common understanding so we can excite more friends, family and community members to engage in environmental governance rather than grow weary of it. But part of the trouble in mainstreaming environmental governance, in my opinion, is that it remains a complex topic to define in layman’s terms.

Hence, I will offer a much slimmer and “easier-to-digest” definition of environmental governance which you can use at the water cooler to pique your colleagues’ interest without overwhelming them:

“Environmental governance is the way in which you or I choose to engage with communities, schools, businesses and politicians to manage the process and structure by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained for future generations — for our children and their children thereafter.” – Walker Young

Let’s break this definition down to its fundamental pieces.

This definition is given in ‘first person’ — notice the use of “you or I”. This is intentional, so that the controls and reigns of civil society remains with the people. Indeed, if people like “you or I” work in the businesses which power the private sector, then we too have a role to play in market-driven governance. If people like “you or I” democratically elect politicians to represent our interests, then we too have a role to play in the political process. Hence, “you or I” lets the audience know that “we” are also the drivers of environmental governance, for better or worse.

Governance is a choice. We choose to be involved and engaged or we choose to ignore. Again, the choice is ours in how the process is managed, but we need to choose. If we choose disinterest over engagement, isolation over multilateralism, then we make the bed which we sleep in. This definition requires citizens to make a stand and be a part of change, otherwise the governance process falls apart. There are certainly examples of the latter scenario in many places today.

The reference to “communities, schools, businesses and politicians” makes sure that all stakeholders are included. The choice of “schools” over the more formal “academia” was intentional; it feels more grounded and relevant to all communities since schools are nearly universal in reach at the local level while universities are not.

Other definitions of environmental governance usually focus on the “process”; however, the process is only one aspect of establishing proper governance at any scale. Equally important is the “structure”, which I have purposefully included in my definition above. In terms of global governance, UNEP (and the UN in general) are process experts. There are processes for dealing with all sorts of environmental issues, from climate change to soil erosion to invasive species like Australia’s problematic cane toad. But one important area where UNEP needs improvements are in its structure — the architecture by which the process is implemented and carried out. Proper environmental governance needs systems thinking to develop a generative model by which processes occur efficiently and fluidly, and where decisions lead to results without multiple detours and sidetracks in between. Every good plan starts with a proper design and strategy.

It’s not enough to refer to “sustainable development” in the definition of environmental governance. Although sustainable development has become common parlance for those following current events and news, it is easy for outsiders to write it off as technocratic babble. Most people are not familiar with the Brundtland Commission or “Our Common Future”: The Brundtland Report, which lays out the commonly accepted definition of sustainable development. This is why I instead include the phrase “by which our natural resources and environment are used but also sustained” and then proceed to reference “for future generations” in homage to the Brundtland definition. Again, I simplify “future generations” by ending with “for our children and their children thereafter” so that readers take to heart that “future generations” is not some alien race millions of years into the future; it is our generation and that which follows us. This hits home with much more impact than “future generations”. Parents already can envision a future for their children, and most parents will want to be able to envision that future as a bright one.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

While I am not ultimately sure if my offered definition of environmental governance is any more useful than its predecessors, I do hope that my rationale above is useful for the reader to think about and consider. If you do enjoy the definition, please do start using it and spreading the word. I feel strongly that environmental governance needs more engagement from us, the people, in order for the outcomes we so desperately desire to take root. I think the definition offered helps place the ball in our court — now it’s up to us to take it forward.

Source: Walker Young at http://walker-young.com/2011/08/definition-revisited/ (viewed on 7 September 2011).