Environmental Democracy and Sustainable Development

This article was write Hiteshi Agarwal, a student of SS Jain Subodh Law College.

INTRODUCTION

The word ‘Environment’ is derived from the French word ‘Environ’ which means surrounding, it is a complex comprising of various variables ranging from abiotic to biotic matter. We can say that anything which is not us is environment. Shifting to the term democracy, it primarily means rule by the common people. Amalgamating environment and democracy conveys a scientific meaning which implies meaningful participation of the public to ensure that land and natural resource decisions are taken adequately and equitably to address citizen’s interests. At its core, environmental democracy involves three mutually reinforcing rights, such as access to information, public participation and access to justice. The following rights are considered as pillars of environmental democracy. The essay throws light on the importance and need of environmental democracy and its role in sustainable development.

Quoting Mr. Richard Roger, “The only way forward we are going to improve the quality of environment is to get everybody involved.”

This necessitates the requirement of public to have free access to information relating to environmental quality and problems, to participate in decision making process and to seek enforcement of environmental laws.

EVOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL JURISPRUDENCE

Originally the Indian Constitution did not have any explicit reference to environment protection, but taking note of the Stockholm Conference[1] and growing awareness for environmental protection and eco-imbalances the Indian Parliament through the 42^nd Amendment introduced Articles 48-A and 51-A. In Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar[2] the SC observed that right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 and it involves the right of enjoyment of pollution free air and water. It has also been declared by the SC that environment is one of the facets of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution[3]. The Supreme Court has through the mechanism of PIL several times issued directions relating to environmental pollution and eco-imbalances. Matters like pollution of the Ganges and the Yamuna,[4] the Taj Trapezium Case[5], the Shriram Food and fertilizer case[6] have proved beneficial in the long run.

ADVENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY

 Environmental democracy has best been defined by Principle 10 of Rio Declaration, 1992[7] as:

“Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.”

Environmental Democracy is a transparent, accountable government that requires dissemination of environmental information, participation of all the communities in the decision making process and enforcement of rights through judicial courts. The Access Initiative (TAI) is a global initiative established in the late 2000 to develop a methodology which reduces the gap prevalent between law and implementation. It endeavors its efforts towards achievement of the objectives of environmental democracy. The TAI with the help of their local partners in respective countries assist the government to make reforms and build awareness among people about their ability to influence the environmental decisions of the government. The Environmental Democracy Index (EDI) is the first comprehensive index which measures the extent to which the countries have enacted legally binding rules for environmental information collection and disclosure, public participation across a range of environmental decisions, and fair, affordable and independent avenues for seeking justice. The index evaluates environmental democracy in 70 countries and India ranked 24^th amongst the 70 countries.

INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTAL DEMOCRACY

The three important institutional barriers to environmental democracy are:

• The unavailability of information obstructs effective and meaningful participation in decision making.
• Lack of consultation by policymakers with the regional and marginalized communities who are the most affected by the environmental policies further impending public engagement. Even if information were freely available, democracy cannot obtain if states simply refuse to engage with their constituents. Environmental Democracy requires a fair, equal and all inclusive system that does not privilege certain interests over another and requires policy input from all its constituents in such a way that every sect has an opportunity to participate in decision making.
• The lack of avenues for redress for environmental injustice prevents citizens from defending their constitutional rights. Mainstream environmentalism not only neglects the rights of the poor and the marginalized, even state institutions fail to protect the citizenry

against corporations  having considerable litigation power.

MECHANISM TO CURB INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS

First, the “Right to Know” must be embedded in both state and local law as a fundamental first step toward securing environmental democracy. The “Right to Know” movement champions freedom of information (FOI) laws requiring that environment- and health-relevant information be made freely available to citizens. With such information, citizens would be able to participate more effectively and confidently in political decision-making, as well as hold corporations and states accountable for infringements upon their environmental rights.

Second, states must proactively and preemptively consult the citizenry on policies, inform them of avenues for greater participation, and provide opportunities for general environmental education. These opportunities must also be heavily or fully subsidized such that citizens can participate without incurring huge costs. This would enable and encourage citizens to engage with issues that concern their immediate environment.

Finally, an open and inclusive system of redress for environmental injustice must be implemented to ensure that all citizens enjoy the full suite of constitutional rights when they have been harmed. Citizens should possess the unimpeded right to demand compensation, contest proposed policies or projects, and openly challenge violations of their environmental rights.

CONCLUSION

In recent times states and its citizens are under an obligation to protect and improve the environment. They are obligated to save flora and fauna and at the same time have civic sense towards the environment. To effectively address all the problems, the first step is to know the problem and deliberate it. The constitutional compulsions must vitalize the rule of law into creating dynamic policies on environment otherwise they will turn out to be mere declarations on paper. It is vital to reiterate the need for social and economic well being of people throughout the world within the sustainable development base.

[1] Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle I

[2] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991. AIR 420

[3] Noida Memorial Complex Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary, Re (2011) 1 SCC 744

[4] M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1987) 4 SCC 463

[5] M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1986) 2 SCC 325

[6] M.C. Mehta v. UOI (1997) 2 SCC 353

[7] Principle 10 of Rio Declaration, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)