Dealing with environmental problems is not that simple

By Priscilla Hon

The imperatives of state sovereignty and demands for some level of international governance of the environment are two opposing trends at work.

SINGAPORE: Recently, the haze in South-east Asia has become a regional obsession, second only to the financial crisis. The fires raging in Kalimantan and Sumatra caught international attention. More importantly, they caught the attention of the governments and people in South-east Asia.

Impatience over official inaction, or late reaction to the problem, reached far greater heights than the previous years when the first episode of haze reared its ugly head. What we have witnessed so far are unprecedented public indications to "do something about it". President Soeharto has apologised twice; his ministers have pledged to get tough with logging companies and Malaysia is starting to push for stronger Asean efforts to ensure that the haze does not recur with such ferocity.

The recent episode has shown that environmental problems not only cross borders, they have direct impact on the economy and on domestic politics. Rising health costs strain government spending and affect the labour force; tourism will fall if South-east Asia is labelled a health hazard; and multi-national corporations will think twice about allocating more resources to the region. Also, if promises of change are not kept, the protests will grow louder, and they will not merely be directed at the domestic government.

Looking back at how governments reacted to the haze, a nervous atmosphere was detectable. Cross-border help was gently offered, and provided when requested. Everyone was told to be patient, and speak softly. That, it has been explained, is the Asean way.

The Asean way is a product of years of socialising among the member states. It encompasses reverence for state sovereignty and its territorial integrity, and adherence to the rule of non- interference in domestic politics that have been among the basic principles observed by Asean. It is based on cooperation and consensus where informality, courtesy and politeness are the order of the day.

Also, foreign policy is not conducted in full public view, risking public loss of face, and if a dispute cannot be resolved, it is left for another day, while Asean countries agree to disagree for the time being. These principles have been the organisation's main strength. Such norms of diplomacy may have worked for economic and political affairs but environmental problems throw up different challenges and demand new responses.

It may be asked of the Asean way, that if governments are so familiar with each other, then could a little bluntness not be accepted without threatening the organisation? After all, criticism between friends need not sour the relationship. Is Asean still too fragile to withstand any such test?

The problem between state power and the politics of the environment is not just an Asean dilemma. It is an international issue in a world moving along the "globalisation" path, facing global problems. In December, a follow-up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit will take place in Kyoto. Already, there is controversy over the proposed treaty on the reduction of carbon monoxide emissions. The U.S. would not sign unless developing countries do, Tokyo wants to exempt China, Brazil and India from the treaty, presumably in exchange for their attendance, and developing countries are not willing to commit to an environmental plan that might obstruct their industrialisation process.

Herein lies the problem -- how do you deal with environmental problems and seek compensation for damages when states guard their sovereignty so jealously? How do you establish some sort of governance to lessen the damage to the environment?

There are two opposing trends at work. First, the global issue of the environment that questions the efficacy of using state- determined and state-driven mechanisms to address the topic. Economic globalisation, powered by free-market economics and multi-national corporations, has already successfully challenged state power.

Should environmental groups push for their participation in environmental policies and demand that states accept some level of international governance, the fear within states is that it would only open them up to greater degrees of interference. At the other end lies the tenacity of the state as an international political unit that fights to retain its sovereignty and power over resources.

This battle has been ongoing for decades, and while we see pressures growing from the environmental front, no end seems to be in sight.

If the pre-Kyoto Summit debates are anything to go by, and the Rio Summit a historical example, what would emerge are watered- down agreements with little or no binding power that would further consolidate the recalcitrance of the state as a political unit.

In the meantime, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature's recent report argues that if nothing is done about the current rate of deforestation, the lungs of the world will simply die away.

Priscilla Hon is a Research Associate at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.