Dealing with environmental problems is not that simple

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.