Environmental Management: Principles and practice

BOX 1.2 Some definitions of sustainable development
♦
Environmental care ‘married’ to development.
♦
Improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying
capacity of supporting ecosystems.
♦
Development based on the principle of inter-generational (i.e. bequeathing
the same or improved resource endowment to the future that has been
inherited), inter-species and inter-group equity.
♦
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
♦
An environmental ‘handrail’ to guide development.
♦
A change in consumption patterns towards more benign products, and a
shift in investment patterns towards augmenting environmental capital.
♦
A process that seeks to make manifest a higher standard of living (however
interpreted) for human beings…that recognizes this cannot be achieved
at the expense of environmental integrity.
Source: Barrow, 
1995b:372
public interest in the environment. It also spread the messages that global
environmental management was needed; and that without a reduction of poverty
ecosystem damage would be difficult to counter. Environmental management is thus
clearly interrelated with socioeconomic development. Twenty years after the World
Conservation Strategy the same three bodies published Caring for the Earth (IUCN,
UNEP and WWF, 1991), which proposed principles intended to help move from
theory to practice.
Sustainable development was in part generated by fears that the materially
comfortable way of life enjoyed in some countries probably cannot be maintained
on anything like a global scale with likely population growth (Pirages, 1994). As a
concept, sustainable development draws upon two, often opposed, intellectual
traditions: one concerned with the limits nature presents to humans, the other with
the potential for human material development (Redclift, 1987:199; Barrow, 1995b).
Interpretation varies a lot:
♦
Some see it as a quest for harmony between humans and their environment;
♦
Some fail to accept that in a finite world there cannot be unlimited growth;
♦
Some feel there can be a shift to less environmentally damaging improvements
in the quality of human life;
♦
Some hope technology will allow limits to be stretched.
There are too many situations where naive, ill-thought-out appeals for
sustainable development are made. This harms the concept, risking its dismissal by
the public and decision makers as shallow, unworkable, and so on. Worse, there are
cases where sustainable development is being used as rhetoric or cunning deceit to

---

INTRODUCTION
9
mislead people. Some fear calls for sustainable development may be a way of
sidestepping more radical socioeconomic reform. Environmental management must
police the use of the concept to prevent its misuse for propaganda or it will become
devalued (genetic engineering is subject to similar misleading propaganda which
could make its responsible use difficult if the public loses trust).
‘Mainstream’ sustainable development typically urges:
♦
the maintenance of ecological integrity;
♦
the integration of environmental care and development;
♦
the adoption of an internationalist (North-South interdependence) stance;
♦
the satisfaction of at least basic, human needs for all;
♦
‘utilitarian conservation’;
♦
concern for inter-generational, inter-group and inter-species equity;
♦
the application of science, technology and environmental knowledge to world
development;
♦
the acceptance of some economic growth (within limits);
♦
the adoption of a long-term view.
The question is whether sustainable development is going to act just as a guiding
principle (which in itself is valuable) or whether it generates practical strategies that
improve human well-being and prevent environmental degradation. It is not only
misuse of sustainable development language by the media, politicians, activists and
commerce that poses a problem: some academics and environmental managers are
careless. Care is needed to ensure that sustainable development is a realistic objective
based on workable strategy.
Environmental problems often do not have a single simple solution. Their solution
presents alternatives and challenges; environmental management therefore faces
dilemmas (Bennett, 1992:5–9): (1) Ethical dilemmas—e.g. what to conserve—Inuit
hunters or whales? (2) Efficiency dilemmas—e.g. how much environmental damage is
acceptable? (3) Equity dilemmas—e.g. who benefits from environmental management
decisions, and who pays? (4) Liberty dilemmas—e.g. to what degree must people be
restricted to protect the environment? (5) Uncertainty dilemmas—e.g. how to choose
a course of action without adequate knowledge or data? (6) Evaluation dilemmas—
e.g. how to compare different effects of various options or actions?
Human beings often respond to perceived crisis, rather than carefully assessing
the situation and acting to prevent problems. With sustainable development as a central
goal, crisis management is a dangerous practice, for, once manifest, problems may not
be easily solved and could jeopardize sustainability. The solution is to adopt the
precautionary principle (see chapter 3 for further discussion) (Bodansky, 1991; Costanza
and Cornwell, 1992; O’Riordan and Cameron, 1995; Francis, 1996). The precautionary
principle shifts the burden of proof that a proposal is safe from the ‘victim’ to the
‘developer’ (O’Riordan, 1995:8–10). It also makes sense because environmental
management often deals with inadequate data, may have to rely on modelling that is
deficient, and has to cope with issues that are complex and not fully understood.

---

CHAPTER ONE
10
Decision making is often affected by ‘polarized perceptions’ (ideas based more
on stakeholders’ prejudice, misconception or greed than objectivity) (Baarschers,
1996). Even if the environmental manager is objective, powerful special-interest
groups (e.g. the rich; government ministers; lobby groups; non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), industry, the military) may not be. Problems are often caused
by sovereignty or strategic arguments which threaten common-sense decisions and
make transboundary issues difficult to resolve. The environmental manager must
manipulate these forces, trading off stakeholders’ desires against protecting the
environment. Little remains fixed: demands from various stakeholders alter, the
environment changes, public attitudes shift, human capabilities vary—so
environmental management must be flexible, adaptive and perceptive (Holling, 1978).
Co-ordination of environment and development requires awareness of
environmental and human limits, potential and risks or hazards. For most of human
history worries have mainly been caused by the acquisition of inputs (food, water, fuel,
etc.); over the last century have appeared added problems over outputs (pollution and
waste). Environmental problems are commonly caused by human behaviour, notably
consumerism; another challenge is the growing human population; another is poverty.
Somehow, environmental management has to separate what is real from vague abstractions
and fashionable attitudes (Wisner, 1990). It is widely argued that environmental
management must address poverty and encourage the use of aid to prevent people
degrading their surroundings. These issues were debated, but by no means resolved, at
the 1992 Earth Summit, and most environmental managers accept that a component of
any strategy for sustainable development is the satisfaction of basic human needs.
Environmental managers are increasingly likely to face:
♦
an unproven threat;
♦
transboundary or global challenges;
♦
problems demanding rapid decisions;
♦
an increasing exchange of information with NGOs via the Internet and various
other networks. This means that environmental managers must keep abreast of
the activities of many bodies (it also offers possibilities for alliances, and data
gathering from different sources).
Modern science has traditionally adopted a reductionist approach, with
disciplinary specialists studying components of a problem and avoiding any
judgement or advice to managers or planners before there is adequate proof.
Environmental managers have to deal with uncertainty and complex problems which
often cannot afford to wait long enough for proof to be obtained. Reductionist
approaches may be too slow when there is pressure to give advice (Funtowicz and
Ravetz, 1991). Something may have the potential to cause serious, possibly
irreversible problems unless prompt action is taken but it has not actually been proved
to be a threat (the classic case being global warming). Environmental management
may have to rely on modelling, simulation and forecasts rather than factual
predictions—it may be necessary to resort to advocacy without proof, and identify
the agency and the mechanism whereby advocacy can be pursued (Redclift, 1984:44).

---

INTRODUCTION
11
The last few decades have seen the recognition of more and more transboundary
or global threats. However, there have been helpful developments: environmental
management can now draw on improved knowledge of the structure and function of
the environment, and of human institution-building, group interaction and perceptions,
and new tools are available which improve monitoring, data gathering, impact
assessment, information processing, decision making and communication. Though
environmental managers face growing problems, they have more powerful aids to
draw upon. These developments mean it is possible for environmental management
to move away from corrective to anticipatory approaches (adopting the precautionary
principle).
Who are environmental managers? A wide range of bodies professionals are
involved in environmental management: government agencies (e.g. the European
Environmental Agency), international bodies and aid organizations (like the UNEP,
FAO, World Bank, USAID, etc.), research institutes (e.g. the Worldwatch Institute,
IIED, etc.), NGOs (e.g. WWF, IUCN, Friends of the Earth, etc.); the public (see Box
1.2). Identifying a single environmental manager in a given situation may be like
trying to identify who built a Boeing 747 aircraft.
What motivates environmental management? One or more of the following
may lead to its adoption:
♦
Pragmatic reasons—fear or common sense makes people or administrators
seek to avoid a problem.
♦
Desire to save costs—it may be cheaper to avoid problems or counter them
than suffer the consequences (pollution, litigation, etc.). There may also be
advantages in waste recovery, energy conservation, and maintaining
environmental quality.
♦
Compliance—individuals, local government, companies, states, etc., may be
required by laws, national or international agreement to care for the
environment.
♦
Shift in ethics—research, the media, individuals or groups of activists may
trigger new attitudes, agreements or laws.
♦
Macro-economics—promotion of environmental management may lead to
economic expansion: a market for pollution control equipment, use of recovered
waste, more secure and efficient energy and raw materials supply; or there
may be advantages in ‘internalizing externalities’ (see pareto optimum
discussion in chapter 5).