Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03. 23

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 14 (2011) 61–64

Regional Environmental Governance: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Theoretical Issues, Comparative Designs (REGov)

ASEAN and environmental governance: rethinking networked regionalism in Southeast Asia

Lorraine Elliott*

Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

Abstract

This contribution is based on a set of reflections presented at the REGov Workshop. These reflections were offered as part of apanel discussion around the topic “Environmental regionalization, democracy, and civil society.” Additional presentations provided in the context of this panel discussion include those of Andreas Klinke, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science andTechnology (this volume), and Nicolas Evrard, European Association of Elected Representatives from Mountain Areas (this volume). Webcasts of all presentations are available at http://www.reg-observatory.org/outputs.html.© 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Environmental governance; ASEAN; Networked regionalism.

Scholars such as Peter Katzenstein and T J Pempel have argued that the Asia Pacific is characterized by networked rather than institutionalized forms of regionalism in which ‘social forces … create multiple political connections’ (Katzenstein, 1996, p. 146). Networked regionalism is assumed to be ‘inclusive’ (Katzenstein, 1996, p. 125) and more effective than institutional structures in enhancing intra-regional engagement (see Pempel, 2006, p. 241). Based on this analytically eclectic model of Asian regionalism one might expect to find, first, that regional approaches to environmental degradation in Southeast Asia have been similarly characterized by informal and spontaneous networks and, second, that efforts to formalize policy-making at the regional level have impeded rather than enhanced regionalism.

But in Southeast Asia, this is precisely what has not happened in the environmental sphere. Since environmental issues were first inscribed on the ASEAN agenda in 1997, there has been an admittedly slow and often uneven trajectory of institutionalization of environmental governance arrangements. ASEAN environmental regionalism, rather than being constructed through private, bottom-up, and spontaneous processes, has been very much driven by ASEAN member states. Thus vertical modes of governance – those described by Rosenau as reflecting a ‘downward flow of authority originating … among national states and their bureaucracies’ (2002, p. 80) – have been much more prominent than the horizontal modes of governance that characterize networks.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 61250589; fax: +61 2 61250589 E-mail address: Lorraine.Elliott@anu.edu.au.

0

62 Lorraine Elliott. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 14 (2011) 61–64

Since environmental issues were first inscribed on the ASEAN agenda in 1977, the member states have developed an increasingly complex web of soft-law declarations, resolutions, plans of action, issue-specific programmes and two binding multilateral agreements. Those efforts have been closely linked to the evolution of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and to the determination of member states to present themselves as a coherent regional unit, rather than simply a subregion of the Asia Pacific, with authority over what happens ‘in’ the region. The influence of the behavioural and procedural norms of the ASEAN way has meant that for much of its history environmental cooperation in Southeast Asia has been confined to functional cooperation, characterized by a weak form of institutionalism and a reliance on national institutions rather than some form of centralized, regional bureaucracy. For much of its history, the form and function of multilateral environmental cooperation has been a product of the so-called ASEAN-way: the non-interference norm that gives priority to national sovereignty and a preference for step-by-step, quiet and consensus based non-confrontational diplomacy. This is reflected in the ASEAN preference for nonbinding agreements and a general reluctance to interfere in, or to direct in any authoritative way, the environmental practices of member states. Yet the ASEAN-way has also been challenged by the demands wrought by environmental challenges that are increasingly common problems, shared problems and transnational problems.

The expansion of ASEAN in the 1990s brought new demands and challenges, particularly for the least developed members of the Association for whom capacity building in sustainable development and environmental management is a key issue. However it also delivered the opportunity to engage all countries in the region in a move to more robust institutional frameworks and commitments on environmental protection, mitigation and adaptation. It is perhaps telling that as ASEAN has evolved to include all ten Southeast Asian countries, environmental challenges have been moved from the functional cooperation sector and redefined as a transnational issue on the Association’s agenda. Nevertheless, regional environmental cooperation under ASEAN continues to face challenges of weak compliance, few sanctions, political differences over environmental versus economic priorities, and limited financial and other material resources and human capacity (although these challenges are not peculiar to Southeast Asia).

There have been three phases in the development of ASEAN environmental regionalism. The first phase, from 1977 until the mid-to-late 1980s, was characterized by an emphasis on environmental assets and national resilience. The very clear purpose of the ASEAN subregional environment programs (ASEP) adopted during this period was to maintain the ‘continuous availability of natural resources’ (ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment [AMME], 1981) in order to overcome poverty and improve quality of life. The second phase, from the late 1980s until the late 1990s, can be characterized as one of responsibility and stewardship with much more attention given to transnational challenges and transnational responsibilities. There was a more clearly articulated awareness that environmental problems, including regional pollution problems, affected the ‘common well-being of the people of ASEAN’ (AMME, 1987) and that environmental protection and sustainable development were essential to a ‘better quality of life’ (AMME, 1992). Resolutions and agreements began to speak of eco-efficiency and environmental stewardship (see AMME, 1997) and policy recommendations called for environmental concerns to be integrated with economic ones.

The transition to a third phase of environmental regionalism in Southeast Asia proceeded in step with ASEAN’s move to a more formal mode of community-building. This phase has been marked less by normative development and more by the institutionalization of a series of ambitious environmental goals and objectives. Sustainable development and environmental protection goals have been increasingly incorporated into the broader plans and vision statements that member states have adopted in their political efforts to transform ASEAN and Southeast Asia into a ‘community’ of states and peoples with a ‘public sense of stewardship towards protecting [the] environment’ (AMME, 2000) and ‘fully established mechanisms for sustainable development to ensure the protection of the region’s environment, the sustainability of its natural resources and the high quality of life of its peoples’ (ASEAN Secretariat, 2002, p. 2).

It is only in this latest phase of environmental cooperation that network engagement across the region becomes a feature of this process. But ASEAN has been the instigator of these network arrangements which include

Lorraine Elliott. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 14 (2011) 61–64 63

transgovernmental networks, knowledge networks, consultation and coordination networks and compliance networks. ASEAN policy-makers have made explicit strategic and political claims for the advantages of network arrangements in this institutional context. Networks, they claim, will contribute fluidity to the policy-making process through complementing and supporting decision-making and helping to streamline the policy agenda. They will enhance exchange among senior officials, regional experts and stakeholders. They will support peer to peer consultation and learning (see Takana, 2009; Azmi, 2009) and enable ‘ASEAN to be more independent of international consultants and external advice’ (Thang, 2010, p. 6).

Within ASEAN, networks have been tasked to build strategic networks and partnerships with the private sector, international institutions and civil society (the mandate of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity), to share knowledge and experience (the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (ARKN-FLEG), the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Network on Forests and Climate Change (ARKN-FCC) and the ASEAN Forest Clearinghouse Mechanism (CHM)), and to enhance enforcement and compliance (the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN)). These are, in effect, regional (and regionalized) forms of what would otherwise be recognized as global public policy networks.

Regional environmental structures under ASEAN have generally failed to offer effective channels of communication for and among a wide range of stakeholders, including local communities and sub-national units. Commentators have pointed to the importance of engagement with civil society for robust regional environmental governance structures and processes. Badenoch argues, for example, that ‘improved institutional structures that can better deal with multiple interests and complex human-environment interactions, along with refined governance practices to enhance the breadth and depth of stakeholder involvement, will contribute to more sustainable and equitable environmental outcomes’ (2002, p. 2). Morada suggests that ASEAN will sustain and increase its relevance only if it opens up to ‘participatory regionalism’ (2008).

ASEAN’s network-building efforts have been accompanied by a more structured engagement with non-governmental organizations. NGO efforts have become increasingly important in supporting ASEAN programmes and also in facilitating other mechanisms for dialogue, cross-border cooperation and sometimes regulation and standard-setting on which governments have come to rely. This apparent willingness to work more closely with NGOs and civil society groups in a formally structured way is new, despite claims in the fourth ASEAN State of the Environment Report that ‘ASEAN has always welcomed and encouraged the participation of Civil Society Organisations in its regional programmes and activities’ (ASEAN Secretariat, 2009, p. 140).

At the same time (although no claims are made that this is necessarily causal), there has been a slow burgeoning of private/non-state/NGO networks on environment and environment-related issues. In contrast to the Katzenstein argument that these kinds of informal networks reflect the ‘old’ regionalism in Asia, Ellen Frost sees these moves by environmental groups (among others) to form ‘information networks and patchy cross-border coalitions’ as representative of new regionalism (2008: 1; emphasis added). In a similar move, Chandra argues that the idea of ‘spontaneous, bottom-up process[es] that recognize the importance of a wide-range of stakeholders in the making of regional systems and institutions’ defines not the old regionalism in Southeast Asia but a much newer alternativeregionalism (2009, p. 4).

References

ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment (AMME). (1981). Manila Declaration on the ASEAN Environment, Manila, 30 April. —— . (1987). Jakarta Resolution on Sustainable Development, Jakarta, 30 October. —— . (1992). Resolution on Environment and Development, Singapore, 18 February. ——. (1997). Jakarta Declaration on Environment and Development, Jakarta, 18 September. ——. (2000). Joint Press Statement, 5th Information ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment, Bandar Seri Begawan, 4 April . ASEAN Secretariat. (2002). ASEAN Report to the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat. ASEAN Secretariat. (2009). Fourth ASEAN State of the Environment Report. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

64 Lorraine Elliott. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 14 (2011) 61–64

Azmi, M. A. (2009). ASEAN Peer Consultation Framework (PCF): a significant breakthrough in ASEAN regionalcooperation in forestry. In M. van Wart, D. Goehler & F. Fawzia (Eds.), Seminar Proceedings: ASEAN High Leel Seminar, Climate change adaptation and mitigation: towards a cross-sectoral programme approach in ASEAN. Jakarta: ASEAN-German Regional Forest Programme.

Badenoch, N. (2002). Transboundary environmental governance: principles and practice in mainland Southeast Asia. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.

Chandra, A. C. (2009). Civil society in search of an alternative regionalism in ASEAN. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Frost, E. L. (2008). Asia’s new regionalism. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Regionalism in comparative perspective.Cooperation and Conflict, 31, 123-59. Morada, N. M. (2008). ASEAN at 40: prospects for community building in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Review, 15, 36-55. Pempel, T. J. (2006). The race to connect East Asia: an unending steeplechase. Asian Economic Policy Review. 1, 239-54. Rosenau, J. N. (2002). Governance in a new global order. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds), Governing globalization: power, authority and global

governance. Cambridge: Polity Press. Tanaka, K. (2009). Peer review to strengthen regional integration in ASEAN. In M. van Wart, D. Goehler & F. Fawzia (Eds), Seminar

Proceedings: ASEAN High Leel Seminar, Climate change adaptation and mitigation: towards a cross-sectoral programme approach in ASEAN. Jakarta: ASEAN-German Regional Forest Programme.

Thang, H. C. (2010) ASEAN Timber Legality and Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) Process, Paper prepared for the Forests, Markets, Policy & Practice – China 2010: International Conference on Sustainable Forests & Markets Development, Beijing, China, 7-8 September.