Environmental Governance in an Era of Participatory Decision Making: Canadian and American Approaches

Abstract

Environmental degradation defies easy remedies. It knows neither laws nor boundaries and triggers changes within the ecosystem that are hard to trace and even harder to correct. The obvious solution is to prevent degradation in the first place. What is therefore required, environmentalists have argued, is a form of 'environmental governance' which ensures that the natural environment is taken into account when economic activities are undertaken. Ultimately, environmentally friendly priorities must be adopted by the state and all policy making conducted according to these priorities. Yet, such a prospect--a state which can coordinate its various policy-making appendages so as to ensure that they function as one body--is an illusion. In reality, the state is fragmented by the division and subdivision of policy-making authority among various institutions, as well as the increased interactions of these component parts with societal actors. The entity that we refer to as 'the state' is in fact a complex of distinct institutions, each of which operates according to a unique decision-making dynamic and is intricately connected to a different segment of society. This arrangement hardly seems conducive to pursuing overall policy goals. The term has been used in both the Canadian and American contexts to describe state decision making. Laments about divided government and the fragmentation of power in the American political system are ubiquitous. Critics (Lindblom 1977; Lowi 1979) note that this fragmentation obstructs disciplined decision making, with the result that irrational and incoherent compromises are the usual outcome of policy making. In a similar vein, it has been argued (Cairns 1995) that the state in Canada is internally fragmented and embedded in society, and that its chances for manoeuvrability in terms of policy innovation or coordination are slight. From this perspective, the prospects for environmental governance in either country seem slim indeed. Employing comparative analysis, this paper suggests, however, that some measure of coordinative policy making can be, and has been, achieved through the use of 'multi-stakeholder consultations' on policy questions in Canada. Such consultations may provide a forum for environmental priority-setting which partly overcomes state fragmentation. Multi-stakeholder consultation aids in forming overarching relationships which transcend the institutional divisions of the state--between levels of government, between government agencies and between divisions within these agencies--and which forge links between government and societal interests. On the other hand, mechanisms for involving the public in American environmental decision making, referred to under the umbrella term 'alternative dispute resolution techniques,' are geared more toward immediate problem-solving than broader policy making, and are subordinated to the agency rule-making process. The American approach is thus less conducive to coordinative policy making and environmental governance. Examples of each approach are presented in order to illustrate these ideas. The Environmental Problematic vs the Fragmented State Environmental degradation does not respect boundaries, whether territorial or jurisdictional. The example of pollution is illustrative. A single source of pollution can have significant impacts on the whole 'web of life,' or ecosystem, as study after study in the tradition of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring (1962) has aptly demonstrated. Environmentalists have sought to transcend the scientific circle and to raise public awareness of the complexity of environmental problems and, ultimately, bring societal attitudes and governance into line with environmental realities. They argue that humans must take a more comprehensive and longer-term perspective on their interactions with the natural environment, as the economic demands and social activities of humanity place the natural environment at risk in so many ways. …