Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4,1992 (621-627)

Introduction

Uday Desai

The Earth Summit in Rio during the summer of 1992 was perhaps the largestgathering ever of heads of state. It was truly aglobal evenL It was notaresult of concemOVCT world peace or war. poverty or disease but, remarkably, it was concem with theworld environment that brought over 150 heads of state to Rio. The summit providedclear evidence, if any was needed, that environmental degradation truly affects allhumanity and that no comer of the world is environmentally safe from the destructiveactions of others.

The intense controversy surrounding President George Bush's refusal to signthe biodiversity treaty at Rio also underscored anothCT global reality: while environ-mental degradation affects all humanity, individual nation states are still the principalactors in environmental politics and policies. While the environment is truly a seamlessglobal blanket, its protection is still in the hands of individual countries.

There has been considerable progress in the adoption of bilateral andintemational treaties dealing with regional and global environmental problems. TheMontreal Protocol, the Law of the Sea Treaty, and the agreement at Rio to reducegreenhouse gases are some of the most successful examples of "intemational environ-mental govemance" (French. 1992). However, even in these cases, it is the individualcountries that must act to implement the requirements of the intemational agreements.The paradox of environmental protection is that, while it is truly a global problem, thesolution depends on local (national) action. Thus, while it is useful to understandintemational environmental govemance mechanisms, it is crucial to study environ-mental politics and policies in individual countries. Environmental politics, like allpolitics, is local.

Interests, Institutions, Ideology, and the Environment

How different countries have historically dealt with the environment is thebasic question in the study of comparative environmental politics and policy. Thisincludes the study of public policies in individual countries specifically designed toprevent or alleviate environmental degradation as well as the study of how economicand political interest and institutions, cultural values, and distribution of power in thesociety influence public policy responses to environmental pollution and the imple-mentation of these policies. The study of comparative environmental politics andpolicies focuses on—the interrelationships of the society's response to ecologicalproblems; the stmcture of its political and economic interests and institutions; politicalideology; and the effectiveness of the public authorities. Ultimately, the study ofcomparative environmental politics and policies is designed to illuminate how thepolitical system operates in individual countries (Mann. 1986; Guimaraes. 1991. p.47).

Policy StmUes Journal, 20:4

More often than not. economic growth has brought about environmentalproblems at least since the beginning of settled agriculture. Economic growth, whetherthrough increased use of fCTtilizers and pesticides in agriculture or through the buildingof automobile and computCT factories, results in environmental pollution. Consump-tion of the fruits of economic growth also creates environmental degradation. Eachamong the well-to-do one-fifth of the world's inhabitants, who mostly reside in the"rich" countries of the world, has as much as 25 times the impact on the world'sresources and environment as each among the poor four-fifUis of the world's inhabit-ants (Miller. 1979). Butpoverty also leads toenvironmentaldegradation.Poorpeopledenude forests in search of firewood for fuel. Overgrazing their land leads todesertification. Thus, both economic growth and the lack of it lead to environmentaldegradation (World Bank. 1992). Therefore, consideration of economic growthstrategies, including agriculture, land use. energy, transportation and other policies,must be included in the study of environmental politics and policy.

Economic growth strategies are profoundly affected by and. in tum. signifi-cantly affect economic and political interests and institutions. Well organized andpowerful landowners, ranchws. loggCTS. industrialists, and importCTs often opposeenvironmental protection policies because these policies may restrict pursuit of theirown economic self-interests. Govemment agencies and officials charged with stimu-lating economic growth also oppose increasing the power and influence of agenciesand officials entmsted with environmental protection policies. Powerful economicinterests are influential not only in govemment agencies but also in political arenas,including political parties, legislatures, and media. The role of economic and politicalinterests and institutions must be at the center of any study of environmental policy andpolitics. How economic and political int^ests and institutions define and diapeenvironmental politics and policies, and how these policies and politics in tum defmeand shape these interests and institutions in different countries, are the basic questionsin the study of comparative environmental politics and policy.

Dominant ideology, a set of assumptions and prescriptions about the world,both natural and social, defines the parameters within which problems, includingecological ones, aredefined and discussed and solutions conceived andcarriedouL Thedominance of central planning or laissez-faire market ideology are two examples ofdrastically different perspectives which would limit the ways in which ecologicalproblems are perceived, and influence the range of policy responses that are designedand implemented to deal with those problems. Attention to the politics ofnonpolicymaking is important in understanding how political systems operate indifferent countries. Considerations of ideological conflicts and dominance in differentcountries are essential in understanding whether and how those countries respond toenvironmental degradation.

The Symposium

This small symposium is based on the conviction that global ecologicalproblemsare ultimately theresultof local actions. Tofully understand andsuccessfuUy

622

Symposium on Environmental Policy: Desai

respond to them requires the study of ecopolitics in individual countries. It is also basedon the belief that there is a pressing need to focus attention on the environmental politicsand policies of developing nations, especially industrializing developing countries.

It is recognized, though political and scholarly discourse in the West quicklypasses over the inconvenient fact, that most of the world's ecological problems arecreated by the high consumption industrial societies. While all humanity is in the sameecological boat (or spaceship), a very small proportion of the world's populationconsumes most of its resources and creates most of its ecological degradation (Miller.1979). While a small number of small rich industrialized nations are responsible formuch of the current global environmental degradation, industrializing developingcountries, small and large, are now also facing environmental pollution within theirborders and are contributing to global ecological problems. Some essentially localenvironmental problems, even in small developing countries, have massive globalecological consequences—^for example, the rapid and continuing destruction of therainforests. Thus, it was not surprising that much of the conflict at the Earth Summitin Rio was directed to securing ecologically responsible behavior from both rich andpoor nations, and equitable sharing of the burden of environmental protection amongthem.

It is obviously not possible, given the number of countries in the world andthe variety of ecological problems they face, to cover even a sample of the mostimportant ones in a short symposium such as this. China and India, the two mostpopulous countries in the world, were obvious choices. They are industrializingcountries with enormous potential impact on global ecological well-being. Theirfundamentally different political and economic systems and different dominantideology promise to provide important insights into the effects of differing economicand political interests, institutions, and ideology on environmental politics andpolicies.

At the other end of the scale are countries such as Costa Rica and Ecuador.Although these countries, with small populations, are geographically at the oppositeend of the world from the population giants China and India, their global ecologicalimportance is no less critical. Destmction of their rainforests tmly has global ecologicalconsequences. They are included in this symposium to provide insights into environ-mental politics in small yet ecologically critical countries.

Developing countries are popularly assumed to be located in Asia. Africa andLatin America A westem nation and member of the European Community (EC) doesnot genCTally come to mind as a developing industrial country. Greece, however, amember of both the EC and NATO, is included in this symposium to provide insightsinto the environmental politics and policies in a developing industrial country in theWesL Thus, this symposium includes five country studies: China. India. Ecuador.Costa Rica and Greece.

The authors of each country study were asked to discuss the major environ-mental policies in the country and the politics of en vironmental policy formulation andimplementation. They were asked to focus on economic and political interests,institutions, and ideology as they relate to the environment in each country. Theinterplay of interests.institutions.ideology.andtheenvironmentprovides thecommonconceptual framework for the individual country studies in this symposium.

623

Policy Studies Journal, 20:4

In China. Lester Ross argues, the old centrally planned economic system,because of its lack of a pricing mechanism, devalued and even excluded considerationof ecological costs. He argues that under the centralized, planned, and repressivesystem no critical evaluation of state policies was allowed and no dissent waspermitted. The pursuit of economic growth was paramounL Ouq)ul-oriented stateplanners and production ministries were the most powerful institutions. There was analmost complete lack of state or civic environmental interests and institutions.Bureaucratic and party career advancement was tied to production quotas andeconomic growth targets, not environmental performance.

The recent economic and political reforms in China have had a profoundimpact on the environment Ross argues that economic reforms, especially theintroduction of a pricing mechanism, have helped improve environmental quality inChina. PoUtical and institutional reforms, especially the development of the legalsystem including environmental laws, have helped control environmental pollution.Inclusion of environmental performance in the criteria for evaluating the performanceof party and bureaucratic functionaries has also helped.

The reforms have also had some negative impact on the environment.Economic reforms are designed to increase economic growth. Economic growth intum has led to increased pollution. Political reforms designed to relax centralizedauthority and to increase the devolution of political powCT to lower levels has led to adecline in the govemment's regulatory capability. This, in tum. affects the implemen-tation of environmental regulations.

In Costa Rica. Jeffrey Jones argues, the economic interests and political andlegal institutions have allowed and even encouraged the widespread destruction of therainforests. He argues that undervaluation of forest lands is the fundamental problem.Forest lands are essentially free. There is a very low charge for permits to clear forests.Private forested lands are taxed as undemtilized lands. Thus, laws CTicourage defores-tation. Politically, small and large farmCTS. agroexporters. bankers, and urban consum-ers make up strong deforestation constituencies in Costa Rica. Thus, economicinterests, as well as political and legal institutions, encourage deforestation.

Jones also discusses, in some detail, recent innovative policies and ap-proaches that are being tried in Costa Rica. These include a broad national program inenvironmental education for primary schools, integration of local populations inconservation activities, and "debt-for-nature" swaps.

Jones points out that the pressure of economic development exacerbated byincreasing population has led to deforestation as a means of adding new agriculturalland. The tension betweoi economic development and environmental protection/conservation seems to be the basic dilemma.

Govemment agencies have failed to prevent deforestation. However, newand innovative approaches that combine public and private national and intemationalresources and incorporate concem for economic growth and the well-being of the localpopulace along with ecological protection are being tried in Costa Rica. Lessons fromtheir successes and failures will have importance well beyond Costa Rican borders.

As in CostaRica.rainforests in Ecuador havefacedrapid destruction in recentdecades. Ecuador's Amazon rainforests have been felled in pursuit of oil and under the

624

Symposium on Environmental PoUcy: Desai

pressure of agricultural colonization. Francisco Pichdn argues that the most importantactor in deforestation in Ecuador's Amazon is the small settler farmer. Therefore, theprincipal focus of any inquiry into deforestation in Ecuador (and also in general) mustbe on "the micro and macro forces that propel farm-level decisions, and [on] the linksbetween farmer welfare and natural resource use."

In Ecuador, roads created for the exploration and exploitation of oil criss-cross the Amazon forests. These roads have been the fundamental means of openingup these forests to agricultural settler colonization. Private and state interests in oilexploration are so powerful that no forces are likely to stop them. Once these roads areopened.Pich6n suggests, theoccupadonofforestlandsby settlers is inevitable. Pich6nalso points out that govemmentpolicies also encourage land settlements in the Amazonregion for national security reasons and as a way to deal with the serious political andsocial consequences of landlessness and unemployment in the most densely populated

areas.Pich6n argues that the inevitable deforestation by small settler farmers has

been made much worse by the prevailing property arrangements which encourageexcessive deforestation and exhaustive use of cleared land. He argues that, in additionto govemment policies and private interests which encourage colonization, the lack ofattention given to the technical assistance, credit, and marketing needs of poor andmarginal settler farmers will continue to result in destmction of Ecuador's rainforests.

Dimitris Stevis focuses on more "traditional" urban air and water pollutionproblems in Greece. He points out that air and coastal water pollution problems ofcities, especially Athens and Salonika, are the most salient environmental problems inGreece. Stevis states that manufacturing and constmction industries, auto importers,and landowners have been the principal intwests opposing environmental regulations,while professional associations such as the Association of Greek Arehitects have beenthe major initiators and supportCTS of such policies. He also argues that both left andright political parties have supported or opposed various environmental policyinitiatives depending on the policies' impacts on their supporters.

There has also been much opposition to environmental protection policieswithin the govemment itself. Economic ministries often oppose such policies if theyperwive them to restrict economic growth or reduce govemment revenues. Theprincipal govemment agency responsible for environmental protection is part of alarger agency that is also responsible for large infrastmcture projects that often resultin environmental degradation. Thus, there is much tension within govemment andopposition to dealing with environmental pollution. On the othCT hand. Stevis alsoargues that Greece's membership in EC has strengthoied environmental policies andthe agencies charged with implementing them.

Michael Reich and B. Bowonder focus on the implementation of environ-mental policies in India. They argue that emphasis on economic growth and its politicalbenefits result in politicians paying more attention to mega-industrial and irrigation/agricultural projects. The same bias toward economic growth also pervades state andcentral govemments. Agencies in charge of environmental protection are relativelyweak. In India's case, its fedCTal political system also contributes to both weakenvironmental policies and ineffective implementation. Large industrial and business

625

Policy Studies Journal, 20:4

interests, in both the public and private sectors, have successfully opposed strictenvironmental regulations. A nascent environmental movement in India has beengrowing, though, and as a result, has put the problems of deforestation and largeirrigation (dam) projects on the political and policy agenda.

Reich and Bowonder argue that, in addition to the economics-first ideology,and powerful opposing economic and bureaucratic interests, another obstacle toenvironmental progress has been institutional inadequacies. These inadequaciesinclude the lack of a clear and comprehensive policy design, lack of policy analysiscapability in the environmental agencies, strict govemmental secrecy, and ad hocenvironmental standard setting. Reich and Bowonder aigue for a more open andparticipative regulatory decision process, for the use of private sector and nongovem-mental organizations in environmental assessments and design of pollution controlsystems, and for much wider use of market incentives (such as a pollution tax andtrading pollution rights).

Conclusion

Several common themes emerge from these five country studies. Emphasison economic growth is a constant in all five. Poor countries and people, acutely awareof the riches of the small minority of humanity, desperately and understandably wanta better material life for themselves and their children. All govemments. therefore,including those in developing countries, place highest priority on economic growth,even at the expense of the local and global environment The ideology of economicgrowth pervades all of these countries, regardless of differences in their size, geogra-phy, political systems, and ecological problems.

Powerful economic and political or bureaucratic interests present a formi-dable obstacle to the development of sustainable environmental strategies in all fivecountries. Industrial, commercial landowning, and other powerful economic interestsoppose, often successfully, enactment of strict environmental laws and. if they areenacted, weaken their implementation. Govemment agencies and legal and politicalinstitutions often oppose environmental restrictions and even contribute to environ-mental degradation. Tenurial and property laws in Costa Rica and Ecuador, andpowerful economic ministries in China and India, provide vivid examples of thesehindrances.

There can be no single set of solutions to the problems of ecologicaldegradation forallcountries. Thesolutionsmustbeasdifferentasthecountries. Chinaand India, though both large, and both Eastem neighbors, must fmd solutions to theirenvironmental problems as different as their political and economic systems and theirhistory. Ecuador. Costa Rica. Greece, and others must do the same. But. whilesolutions must be tailored to the specific situation ofeach country, the comparativestudy of environmental politics and policies provides a deeper understanding ofcommon underiying forces that affect us all.

626

Symposium on Environmental Policy: Desai

Uday Desai is coeditor oi PoUcy StudiesJournal. His research field is energyand environmental policy.

Note

I would like to thank several colleagues who reviewed the manuscripts included in thissymposium: Osbin Ervin. George M. Guess. Roberto P. Guimaraes. Susan Hadden. Sheldon Kamieniecki.Renu Khator. Kenneth Lieberthal. John Montgomeiy. Michael Painter. R. K. Sapru. Lynn Stephens. SaraStiles. Richard P. Suttmeyer. and Lefteris Tsoulouvis. I would also like to thank Mr. Jeff Buchheit forhis research assistance in this projecL

References

French. H.E. (1992). After the Earth Summit: Thefuture of environmental governance (WorldWatchPaper 107). Washington. DC: Worldwatdi Institute.

Guimaraes. R. P. (1991). TheEcopoliticsofdevelopmentintheThirdWorld: Politics and environmentin Brazil. Boulder. CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers.

Mann.D.M. (1986). Democratic politics and environmental policy. InS. Kamieniecki.R. O'Brien, andM. Qarke (Eds.). Controversies in environmental policy (pp. 3-34). Albany. NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Miller. G. T. Jr. (1979). Uving in the environment (2nd ed.). Balmont. CA: Wadsworth.World Bank. (1992). WortdDevelopment Report 1992: Development and the environment. New York:

Oxford University Press.

627