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).

UP-NCPAG’s Center for Local and Regional Governance conducts “Seminar-Workshop for Crafting Climate Change Adaptation Measures and Strategies”

The Center for Local and Regional Governance (CLRG) conducted its first “Seminar-Workshop for Crafting Climate Change Adaptation Measures and Strategies” on 18-22 July 2011 at the Audio-Visual Room of the National College of Public Administration and Governance Building, University of the Philippines in Diliman Quezon City.

Twenty participants attended the workshop. They are mostly provincial/city/municipal legislators, vice-mayors, and technical staff from San Mariano, Isabela; Sorsogon City, Sorsogon; Pili and Libmanan, Camarines Sur; Surigao del Norte; Pulilan and San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan; San Francisco, Southern Leyte; Quezon, Palawan; and First District, Manila.

The objective of the seminar-workshop was to enable the participants to formulate climate change adaptation (CCA) measures and strategies and eventually integrate them into their local development plans. Dr. Ebinezer R. Florano assisted the CLRG in designing the objectives, contents, and schedule of the seminar-workshop; and provided reading materials. He also lectured on climate change governance frameworks (international and national), CCA measures and strategies formulation and prioritization, and mainstreaming CCA into local development plans++.

Government officials, technical experts, environmentalists, and academicians from the following institutions provided lectures and guided the participants in crafting their CCA plans: Climate Change Commission, PAG-ASA, National Defense College of the Philippines, Conservation International, Transcend, UP School of Urban and Regional Planning, and UP-NCPAG. Former Southern Leyte Governor Rosette Lerias and former Opol Mayor Dixon Yasay shared their experiences in climate change adaptation after tragedies struck their LGUs. Gov. Lerias showed a video of the Guinsaugon landslide which occurred in 2006. The video documentary moved some participants to tears, but they were also inspired by the rehabilitation efforts the governor made.

The CLRG will conduct another seminar-workshop in September 2011. For registration details, contact Ms. Cely Jamig, training coordinator, at 928-3914, 925-7422, or 981-8500 local 4175.

FORUM ON CLEAR AIR 10+2

Dear Partners for Clean Air:

We have the honor to invite you to attend our upcoming Forum on Clean Air 10 + 2 and PCA General Assembly on June 14 -15, 2011 at the Social Hall of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Visayas Avenue, Quezon City. Hoping that you may be able to attend this important event.

Kindly send your response on or before June 6, 2011 by calling the PCA Secretariat at telephone numbers 395-7149 and 0916 397-8288.

Thank you very much!

PCA Secretariat

GOOD NEWS: CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION IS AMONG THE FIVE CLUSTERS CREATED BY PRESIDENT AQUINO

PRESIDENT Benigno S. C. Aquino III has formally restructured the Cabinet into five groups that will serve as advisory bodies, a move seen to increase productivity and efficiency in governance, a Palace aide said yesterday.





Under Executive Order (EO) 43 signed by the President on May 13 and effective immediately, the Cabinet has been organized into five clusters, namely, good governance and anti-corruption; human development and poverty reduction; economic development; security, justice and peace; and climate change adaptation and mitigation.


Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. said in a statement the system "is meant to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and focus in carrying out the programs and policies of the government."


The clusters, which will serve as advisory committees to the Office of the President, will recommend measures on policy and operational matters for approval of the President.

.....

The Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation cluster is chaired by the DENR secretary with the Climate Change Commission (CCC) functioning as secretariat. Its members are the HUDCC chairman, the secretaries of DoST, DILG, DPWH, DSWD, DA, DAR, DoE and DND; and the chairman of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.


The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) was not included in the cluster as it is also involved in other non-climate change issues, the head of the agency said in an interview.


Undersecretary Benito T. Ramos, NDRRMC executive director, said in a telephone interview: "Kailangan din [We are still needed for inputs]. Although the CCC and NDRRMC are two separate organizations with separate legislation, we have a memorandum of understanding."


Rather than deal with climate change-related issues, he added, NDRRMC is concerned with the management of disasters that are not influenced by climate change such as earthquakes and volcano eruption.

Source: http://server2.interfuel.com/content.php?section=Nation&title=Aquino-restructures-Cabinet-into-five-clusters&id=31408

GREENING THE MEDIUM-TERM PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MTPDP)

GREENING THE MEDIUM-TERM PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MTPDP) forum to be held on May 27, 1-6 p.m. near the Quezon City Circle. Watch out for details. Being organized by Partido Kalikasan.

NELP confers Green Choice Seal to Fujimoto LED downlight

The National Ecolabelling Program – Green Choice Philippines (NELP-GCP) awarded Fujimoto International Technology Corporation’s (FITC) LED downlight the Green Choice Philippines Seal of Approval last April 26 at the Cavite Economic Zone, Rosario, Cavite. Receiving the seal from National Solid Waste Management Commission Executive Director Emelita Aguinaldo was FITC president Kazushi Fujimoto.

Pushing for a greener economic zone, Mr. Wilson Henson, programme manager of Green Choice Philippines discussed GCP, a voluntary third party ecolabel declaration, to FITC suppliers and costumers. GCP seal is given to products and services that exemplify environmental excellence in their production practices based on set standards. Guided by ISO 14024, GCP aims to green the consumption and production of consumers and manufacturers respectively.

FITC, being a multinational company manufacturing and distributing electronic and semi-conducting materials, expressed confidence to Green Choice Philippines as a business partner that will help them strengthen not only their economic status but also support their environmental advocacies and practices.

In the same way, Mr. Fujimoto affirmed that FITC will continue to support the programs of NELP-GCP by complying with the environmental standards as well as encouraging other business organizations to apply for the GCP seal. Moreover, FITC expressed their intent to apply their other products for the Green Choice seal including their LED kitchen light, fire light, and dome light.

Although FITC is a Japanese-owned company, Mr. Fujimoto expressed, “since Fujimoto is established in the Philippines, it is for the Filipino people.”


As of press time, NELP- GCP has awarded the GCP Seal of Approval to 20 products that show environmental leadership. Philippine Economic Zone Authority director Mrs. Lilia de Lima said in a speech delivered by Atty. Norma Cajulis, administrator of the Cavite Economic Zone said “the 20 products awarded with Green Choice Seal are quite diverse but what is common among the awardees is their strong commitment of reducing the environmental impacts of their manufacturing operations.”

Furthermore, Director Aguinaldo, whose agency sits as a member of NELP-GCP board, encourages manufacturers to apply for the Green Choice Philippines Seal. She added that with GCP seal, consumers can be guided and consequently make informed decisions on purchasing certified true environmentally-sound products and services.

ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ECO-LABELLING PROGRAM (NELP) IN THE PHILIPPINES, 2001-2011

by: Richard Bryan G. Bugarin, Julliane Magdalene Z. Lallana,** Ralph Christian C. Mancenido,* Karen D. Nogaliza,*** and Jose Emmanuel M. Pagkanlungan***

An undegraduate research paper submitted to to the University of the Philippines-National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP-NCPAG), March 2011

Adviser: Prof. Ebinezer R. Florano, Ph.D.

(To be published as Occassional Paper by UP-NCPAG's Publication Office. Advance copy of this paper can be obtained by contacting Mr. Ralph Mancenido via e-mail at ralph11_neo@yahoo.com)

ABSTRACT

The past twenty years saw the rapid upsurge of eco-labelling programs envisioned to address extensive ecological trepidations. European eco-labels led implementation of such scheme to help consumers make good purchasing choices in terms of which among the products in the market have the least negative environmental effects. In the Philippines, the National Eco-labelling Program (NELP) or Green Choice Philippines (GCP) became the government’s response apropos the call for environmental protection. Nevertheless, there exists an indistinct understanding of the effectiveness of eco-labelling on consumers’ consumption activities in the country. This paper assesses the effectiveness of the NELP in terms of achieving the goals and functions for which it has been created. It shows an assessment of the effects and impacts of the program from the years 2001 to 2011 and how these are influenced by the content of the eco-labelling policy and its context of implementation. Significant influences to the implementing activities of the program such as the: (1) program implementers, (2) resources committed, (3) power, interests and strategies of actors involved and (4) institution and regime characteristics have been taken into account to determine their effects on the output and outcome of the program. Industry participation, consumer recognition and demand and environmental quality of certified products were used as indicators to measure the effectiveness of the NELP for this particular study. A qualitative design which involves data gathering and the conduct of interviews with primary stakeholders as well as the collection secondary data was employed in deriving the recommendations that can be used by the NELP in order to improve its implementation of the eco-labelling program. Further, a case study and historical approach was used to arrive at a pattern of data and to analyze the influences to the implementing activities of the program. The results of study showed that the lack of appropriate, clear and comprehensive legal footing and the limited financial resources, both ominously influenced by the content of eco-labelling policy and implementation, are the primary reasons that caused the ineffectiveness of the program. Government intervention, through policy support, is deemed to be necessary to strengthen the implementation of the NELP and further its positive effects to the society. Congress may also look into the integration of the green procurement with that of the public fund-saving policy in procuring products that offer the lowest prices during government biddings. Finally, good governance in its truest sense should be upheld to avoid the added burden, from corruption, to manufacturers.

---------------------
*Graduated Summa Cum Laude, 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2010-2011.
**Graduated Magna Cum Laude, 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2010-2011.
***Graduated Cum Laude, 2nd Semester, Academic Year 2010-2011.