Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects

1
POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; A CRITICAL
REVIEW OF SOME RELEVANT ASPECTC
BY
CAXTON GITONGA KAUA
Caxtonk2008@yahoo.com
WANGARI MAATHAI INSTITUTE FOR PEACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

2
POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; A CRITICAL
REVIEW OF SOME RELEVANT ASPECTS
1.0 Introduction
The tremendous increase in the scale of human impact on earth together with our increased
although imperfect understanding of ecological processes means that the environment can no
longer viewed as a relatively stable background factor. Rather the interaction between economic
development and complex and often fragile ecosystems on which that development depends has
become a major political issue both locally and globally (Maigua & Musyimi, n.d.).
It is no longer possible to treat ecology and politics as separate spheres. The institutions that matter
most are no longer specifically environmental but rather are the core institutions that govern or at
least seek to govern the workings of the world politics and economy. A major focus is actually the
integration of environmental concerns into the sphere of economic planning and policy making
rather than the development of an entirely separate thus peripheral sphere (Maigua & Musyimi,
n.d.).
This study therefore aims to make a critical analysis of some important aspects regarding the
political ecology of environmental management. Political ecology informs political makers and
organizations about the complexities surrounding environment and development thereby
contributing to better environmental governance. It helps understand the decisions that
communities make about the natural environment in the context of their political environment,
economic pressures and societal regulations. Political ecology also looks at how unequal relations
in and among societies affects the environment especially in the context of government policy
(Grieber, 2009).
The study therefore at various political aspects and their influence on environmental management.
Firstly it looks at the issue of environmental democracy and how it influences environmental
management. This includes the aspects of participation, environmental justice and information
access. It then elaborates environmental governance including global environmental governance
and implications on environmental management.
The study then looks at other political aspects of relevance to environmental management
including: the global commons, geopolitics, environmental movements and the conduct of
politicians. It then looks at trends in the political ecology of Africa and then Kenya specifically.
Policy making and how it influences environmental management is then explained. The study then
winds up with a review of. The legal and policy frameworks for environmental management in
Kenya.
2.0 Environmental democracy and environmental management
Environmental democracy connotes the right of all who are affected by environmental quality to
participate in environmental decision making freely. It also entails free access to environmental
information and justice for all who choose to participate in the decision making processes. It
involves the tripartite access rights in environmental management i.e. access to information,
participation in decision making and access to justice. The common denominator of the three rights

3
is to empower individuals to have a meaningful voice in decisions that affect sustainable
development (Muigua & Musyimi, n.d.).
The three rights are intertwined in nature because the attainment of one creates the stage for
exercising of the next one. Access to information equips people with the basic facts and awareness
to enable participation in decision making. This increased participation increases vigilance and
identification of anomalies making access to justice inevitable as a means by which the public
ventilates for resolution and reservations in the application and implementation of environmental
laws and policies. Access to justice also provides a remedial measure when the rights are deprived
or transgressed (Muigua & Musyimi, n.d.)
Environmental democracy therefore exists when the public is able to freely access information
about environmental impacts, participate meaningfully in decision making and demand
enforcement of environmental law or compensation for damage. These rights, called procedural
rights, are grouped into three areas of access to information, public participation and access to
justice. These are the core principles of good governance and are practically human rights in
themselves (WRI, 2014)
Environmental democracy has been recognized by international institutions such as the UNDP as
essential to sustainable development because it can improve information flow, lessen the
likelihood of inequitable outcomes from closed door decision making and enable essential
accountability mechanisms if rules are not properly followed (WRI, 2014). Environmental
management therefore stands to gain from democracy.
The international legal framework for environmental democracy includes the Stockholm
declaration (1972), the Rio declaration (1992), the universal declaration on human rights (1948),
and the international covenant on civil and political rights (1966). We also have the African charter
on human and people rights (1981), the convention on biological diversity, the UNCCD (1992)
and more importantly the Aarhus convention of 1998.
In Kenya we have EMCA which secures the basic minimums for enabling public participation and
easing requirements for locus standii in environmental matters hence advancing justice. It also
guarantees the right of access information and participation decision making processes (Muigua
& Musyimi, n.d.). .The act also sets up the structures for ensuring environmental democracy in
Kenya
An Environmental Democracy Index (EDI) has been developed by The Access Initiative (TAI)
and the World Resources Institute (WRI) to measure procedural rights in an environmental
context. The UNEP Bali guidelines for the development of national legislation on access to
information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters i.e. the UNEP P10
Bali guidelines provide the EDI with an international standard against which national laws can be
assessed (WRI, 2014).
The EDI is an essential tool to help strengthen procedural rights given that the recent surge in laws
on access have not been accompanied by a corresponding analysis of their scope, quality and
implementation. The three fundamental democracy rights have also not received equal amounts of

4
political attention. Dozens of laws have been passed in particular on the right to information but
laws and regulations protecting citizens right to participate in decisions that impact the
environment are often weak, vague or absent
1.1 Participation
For the most part of the past century, natural resource conservation was characterized by
centralized modes of environmental decision making that placed the control of natural resources
under the control of state bureaucracies. These served to marginalize local actors who were
dependent on the same resources for survival (Adisu & Croll, 1994).
Over the past year, however, a combination of factors have weakened the hegemony of
conservation models based on centralized natural resources management. Many studies have
demonstrated the failure of this approach to protect natural resources (Rinzin, 1999). Studies from
institutional theorists such as Ostrom (1990; 1999) have offered mounting and indisputable
evidence of the inherent capacity of local actors to act collectively in order to solve their
environmental problems (Stringer, 2009).
The increasing focus placed on the environment globally through multilateral norms, agreement
and conventions has shifted the responsibility from the government being provider to a more
consensus based approach where all stakeholders have a role to play thus bringing to the table
different processes of environmental management (UNEP, 2004). This is important given the fact
that good governance involves the multiple sectors including the public sector, the private sector,
civil society and the households (Wingqvist et al, 2012).
Participation of the community and its partnership with other stakeholders has become an
important component of all environmental programs and projects both in terms of subsidiarity in
decision making processes and creating an enabling environment for the community to have a say
over aspects that affect their lives. This intersection between community participation and
environmental management provides significant opportunities and challenges for sustainable
development at the local level (UNEP, 2004)
Community participation calls for people to participate in planning, implementation and managing
their environment. It means readiness on the part of both local government and citizens to accept
equal responsibilities and activities in managing their surroundings. It also calls for commitment
to bring to the table resources, skills and knowledge for this purpose and a respect for the
capabilities and capacities of all partners. It means the value of each groups contribution is seen,
appreciated and used leading to successful community participation (UNEP, 2004).
Community participation is important so as to maintain the subsidiarity of decision making since
decisions need to be taken at the local level on a daily basis. It calls for clear commitment and
involvement of all members of a community to ensure success of various joint activities. It pools
resources and diverse skills and working strategies from within the community. This creates pride
and ownership of a project. It ensures checking and corrective action through monitoring and
evaluation and that this is be done for and by the community itself (UNEP, 2004).

5
Public participation is good since it allows for a wide spectrum of the public to express their views
regarding the environment. The utilization of these views in government decision making on
environmental issues results in better implementation of the goals of environmental protection and
sustainable development given the expanded knowledge base (Muigua & Musyimi, n.d.). More so
public participation adds to the resource intensive area of developing environmental laws and
policies especially in developing nations by supplementing scarce government resources.
At the implementation stage public participation is also critical for monitoring, inspection and
enforcement of environmental laws and policies by identifying and reporting to relevant
authorities’ environmental threats and violations (Muigua & Musyimi n.d.). Public participation
also helps identify environmental problems at the early stage helping save the reaction time, energy
and scarce financial resources at least in the long run. This improves government response to
environmental problems which is often reactive and adversarial in nature
Further to this, public participation in natural resource management helps improve the credibility,
effectiveness and accountability of government decision making processes. This is due to the broad
based consensus for environmental programs that flows from involvement of the public at the
infancy stage of the decision making process.
Decentralization is therefore also a good means towards effective environmental conservation.
Decentralization is recommended because local people are more likely to identify and prioritize
their environmental problems more accurately than in a centralized scenario. Resource allocation
is more efficient and transaction costs are lower when decisions are made locally so that state
expenditure on management can be reduced as resource conservation improves. Local people are
also more likely to respect the decisions that they have participated in making. Monitoring of
resources and their protection also improves. Decentralization also means that the marginalized
groups gain greater influence on local policy (Misati et al, n.d.).
Community based natural resource management despite being good for environmental
management can also be a problem when certain sectors of the community take advantage of their
newly found freedom to illegally use resources for self-profit. This has an escalating effect with
other community members joining in the illegal activities for fear of losing their share of resources
(Misati et al, n.d.).
Communities can also be short changed in the name of public participation. This can be seen
especially in the case of EIA where by community involvement is often confined to the role of
commenting on the already planned projects. The community is seldom consulted until after the
decisions have been made. When a problem emerges from such projects the communities struggle
to find redress through the system (WRI, 2014).
Changes in local and national politics and policy can cause even the best community based natural
resources management initiatives to falter (Briggs et al, 2004). These are external driver’s way
beyond the control of the communities.
A devolved system also has implications on environmental management. This happens due to lack
of clear elaboration as to the role of different levels of government in environmental management.

6
There responsibilities may overlap causing potential certainty as to which level of government
should address which problems and objectives (Henningies & Sadorsky, 2002)
1.2 Information access
The availability of systematic public information on the environment is a powerful tool to facilitate
the interaction between the general public and policy making. Access to information for all who
choose to participate in environmental decision making is integral to the concept of environmental
democracy. Informed with basic facts about the quality of their environment, citizens can become
active participants in identifying and resolving issues at both the local and national levels (Dalby,
2012).
The policy of right to know is an effective tool in empowering communities and citizen groups to
approach industry on an equal footing and to question and if necessary challenge industry and
government decisions on environmental quality. This new approach in identifying and solving
environmental problems involves a change of culture for many in government and industry. It
opens the door for the public to influence decisions affecting their wellbeing and can lead nations
to a healthier more sustainable environment (Dalby, 2012).
However misinterpreted information can lead to inappropriate policies.
1.3 Environmental justice
Environmental justice and sustainable development have more in common than a cursory look at
either of them reveals. Central to the two is the intra and inter-generational distribution of costs
and benefits of development. Their primary concern is the improvement of the quality of people
and access to resources (Mbote & Calloti, 1996). The environmental justice movement challenges
a process of development that does not ensure the sharing of environmental costs and benefits
equitably among all the citizens.
One major strength of environmental justice is that it focusses on communities. The term
environmental justice focusses on the disproportionate sharing of environmental benefits and
burdens between different categories of persons. It focusses broadly on the equity and fairness of
environmental policies. It is based upon the recognition that environmental costs and benefits are
not usually distributed in a fair and equitable manner. It also recognizes the fact that traditionally
environmentalism has not been sufficiently concerned with very divergent local situations and the
plight of minorities (Robert, 1993). The term is synonymous with environmental racism (Dorceta,
1992).
The concerns of environmental justice center on the side effects of industrial activity such as the
siting of waste disposal facilities, proximity of industrial pollution and work place exposure to
pollution. The environmental justice movement seeks to redefine the traditional environmental
movement by incorporating the concerns of minorities within environmental policy making and
there by engendering environmental equality (Gerald, 1995).
The major thrust of the environmental justice movement is to shift attention from the environment
to people. It seeks to show environmental protection should not be planned in a vacuum and that

7
environmental goals should take account of social, political and economic realities. It seeks to
lower the cost of environmental degradation so as to lower the disproportionately high burden
borne by some segments of society (Mbote & Calloti, 1996).
It shifts the central focus of environmentalism from the predominantly middle class concerns with
aesthetic values and improvement to social concerns and relations between different communities.
Environmental protection therefore becomes part of a larger social justice movement that does not
aim at protecting nature as such but strives to achieve a more reasonable balancing of the costs and
benefits of environmental protection across societies. In other words it involves shifting the goals
of environmental protection towards taking into account the needs of the poorer sections of the
community that have suffered from the environmental consequences of industrialization more than
the others (Mbote & Calloti, 1996).
Environmental justice also has to do with the issue of human rights. It has been recognized for
more than three decades that human rights and environmental protection, including biodiversity
and natural resource conservation are related and fundamental goals of the global community
(Ivester & Bazel, n.d.). The linkages between the two subjects are multidimensional and reciprocal.
Several basic principles are generally accepted in the light of this. These include that: failure to
conserve natural resources and biodiversity can undermine human rights; nature conservation can
support the respect for and fulfillment of human rights; certain approaches for conservation have
potential to clash with human rights and failure to respect internationally guaranteed human rights
can be a trigger for environmental destruction (Ivester & Bazel, n.d.). This therefore calls for a
right based approach in environmental management.
2.0 Environmental governance and environmental management
Environmental governance is a specific broad form of governance that refers to the processes and
institutions through which societies make decisions that affect the environment. It is primarily
about how to reach environmental goals including the decision making process towards this end
(Wingqvist et al, 2012). It is a concept in political ecology and environmental politics that
advocates sustainability as the supreme consideration for managing all human activities i.e.
political, social and economic (Peck & Teckel, ). Governance in this case include business,
government and civil society and emphasizes on whole system management (Iplanet et al, n.d.).
At a broad level the term involves reference to some notion of order or a set of explicit and implicit
normative prescriptions of rules about the way things ought to be. It can therefore be understood
by reference to the management of the course of events in a social system. This may involve
various structures, processes and relationships for managing or influencing events such as top-
down enforcement of rules by government authorities as well as more horizontal relationships
where civil and state actors employ less rigid, less prescriptive and less hierarchical approaches to
address their social problems (Kimani, 2010).
Environmental governance therefore represents the relationship between the governors and the
governed encompassing issues of accountability and empowerment especially of the marginalized.
It may also be understood in relationship to the various structures, processes and relationships

8
aimed at securing institutional, legal planning, training and capacity building requirements
necessary to facilitate stakeholders in relation to the environment (Kimani, 2010).
Environmental governance can also be described as the means by which society determines and
acts on goals and priorities related to the management of natural resources. This includes the rules
both formal and informal that govern human behavior in decision making processes related to the
environment as well as the decisions themselves. Appropriate legal frameworks on the global,
regional, national and local levels are a prerequisite for good environmental governance (Grieber,
2009).
It is the process of decision making involved in the control of the environment and natural
resources. IUCN defines environmental governance as the multilevel interactions among but not
limited to three actors I.e. the state, markets and the civil society which interact with one another
in formal and informal ways in formulation and development of policies in response to
environmental related demands and inputs from society, bound by rules, procedures, processes and
widely accepted behavior possessing characteristics of good governance for the purpose of
attaining environmentally sustainable development (IUCN, 2014).
The key principle of environmental governance includes embedding the environment in all levels
of decision making and action; conceptualizing cities and communities economic and political life
as a subset of the environment; emphasizing the connection of the people to ecosystems in which
they live; promoting the transition from open loop i.e. cradle to grave systems to closed loop i.e.
cradle to cradle systems such as permaculture and the 3Rs in waste management (Inomata &
Todarin, 2008). Environmental governance is therefore crucial in addressing the crisis caused by
human impacts on the environment (Inomata & Todarin, 2008)
Effective governance is crucial for protection of natural resources and sustainable development.
Unclear or poor governance can lead to unsustainable use of natural resources (Surkin, 2011).
Without adequate governance mechanisms, conflicts over natural resources are often accentuated
as different actors seek to utilize resources based on their specific needs or priorities (Oviendo,
2010).
Participation, access to information, adequate funding and integrity are some of the crucial aspects
of environmental governance. Environmental governance is dependent upon internal and external
factors. Some of the internal factors that strengthen environmental governance include: policy
development, policy implementation, research and assessment, environmental integration and
political support (Drunkensburg and Slunge, 2011). On the other hand the external factors that
strengthen environmental governance include: environmental awareness, prioritization of
environmental management as a policy issue, environmental regulation with clear mandates,
communication, integrity, information access, participation and environmental constituencies
demanding improved environmental management (Drunkensburg and Slunge, 2011).
States play a crucial role in environmental governance because however far and fast national
economic integration proceeds political authority still remains vested in national governments
(Inomata & Tadanon, 2008). A nations system of governance forms the institutional context within
which property rights to natural resources evolve. The ability and inclination of those in authority

9
to facilitate the cooperation and coordination needed to overcome opportunistic behavior by
individuals is a key factor in forming property rights systems that encourage incentives for wise
use of natural resources. Where power resides with individuals rather than impersonal laws and
institutions, resources will be used inequitably to benefit certain groups and individuals with the
resulting cost being borne by the entire population (Misati et al, n.d.).
The stability and form of a nations’ political system is therefore a specific attribute that
significantly impacts natural resources use. In volatile political systems individual ownership
claims to future returns of conservation actions tends to be uncertain. This situation dilute the
certainty needed to conserve resources leading to degradation and depletion. Individual are in this
case deterred from investing in conservation efforts since payoff is uncertain (Deacon & Mueller,
n.d.).
The policy framework that governs a nation in use of its natural resources also determines the
effectiveness of their management. The method through which a state establishes property rights
can also have important efficacy effects (Fermera & Vincent, 2003). Simply giving resources to
private interests for example in order to enable their exploitation and enhance economic growth
tends to encourage rent seeking as a form of political activity. Such a system also encourages the
political elites to modify governance structures in ways that enhance their ability to bestow such
gifts on political allies hence corruption (Deacon & Mueller, n.d.).
The way a countrys political system affects the mix of private and public output goods its natural
resources produces is also imperative. When a countrys policy decisions are dominated by a small
group of political insiders, it is likely that its natural resources will be used primarily to provide
suitable private goods which can be captured by the politically powerful. However when a countrys
system is based on the rule of law and represents broad interests of the society in general, then
resource use will most likely involve provision of either nonexclusive public goods or also benefit
the political none powerful i.e. the common man (Deacon & Mueller, n.d.).
Environmental governance is a process albeit long to newcomers but can improved stepwise
according to their needs, priorities and abilities. Environmental management can be utilized to
strengthen the overall governance needs by providing entry points for participation, transparency,
accountability and the building of trust and legitimacy.
Environmental governance measures however remain largely insufficient. The necessary reforms
require great investments inform of time, money, energy and diplomacy. This process also has not
generated unanimous response and persistent disagreements slow down the process towards good
environmental governance. Environmental governance therefore faces many challenges including:
inadequate institutional capacities; lack of coordination between the United Nations, national
governments, private sector and civil society; lack of government capacity; inability to influence
public opinion and lack of a shared vision among others (Inomata & Todarin, 2008).
A major obstacle to environmental governance especially in the South is dominance of a
developmentalist inertia in the states’ political mindsets. This is because the question of
environment has not really been efficiently integrated into national development planning and
programs. Instead the common notion is that environmental protection curbs economic and social

10
development an idea encouraged by the frenzy to export raw materials extracted using
environmentally destructive methods that consume resources and fail to achieve any added value
(30) (z). The main concern in these countries is to address more immediate social problems such
as poverty and food insecurity (Inomata & Todarin, 2008).
3.0 Global environmental governance and environmental management
Many of the environmental challenges the world is facing are transboundary and global in nature
and must therefore be addressed through joint actions. These global challenges call a global
approach in addressing them. The international environmental governance systems provide an
important foundation for addressing these types of common environmental challenges (Wingqvist
et al, 2012).
Global environmental governance aims at governing the environment at the global level through a
range of state and non-state actors such as national governments, NGOs and international
organizations like UNEP. Global environmental governance refers to people, political institutions,
regimes and NGOs at all levels of public and private policy making that are collectively
responsible for managing world affairs (Hempel, 1996).
It is the answer to the call for new forms of governance because of the increasing complexity of
the international agenda. It is perceived to be an effective form of multilateral management
essential to the international community in meeting the goals of mitigation and possible reversal
of impacts on the global environment (Elliot, 1956).
Global environmental governance is the organization, policy instruments, financing mechanisms,
rules, procedures and norms which regulate global environmental protection (Najam et al 2006).
The last decades have seen a rapid development of the international system for environmental
governance as witnessed by a series of major United Nations conferences and multilateral
environmental agreements (Biermann et al, 2011).
Global environmental agreements although not the panacea to global environmental management
challenges do form the centerpiece of international efforts to deal with environmental problems.
These regulatory frameworks also support market based mechanisms through expression of
fundamental principles, establishment and definition of property rights over common resources
where they don’t exist and in creating structures of the market itself and the mechanisms by which
it will be monitored (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).
Interstate cooperation is increasingly being directed towards agreeing upon and implementing
international legal standards. Standard setting is necessary to define the general principles of
collective management of the global environment. It is also necessary to formulate precise rules
of process and mandatory permitted or proscribed conduct. At the same time standards stabilize,
reflect and give contractual expression of the results of the underlying bargaining process between
conflicting state interests (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).
Inefficiency in the international environmental governance system has however resulted in an
implementation deficit of these strategies meaning their insufficiency in halting environmental
degradation. Some of the voiced critiques include the existence of too many institutions in too

11
many different places with weak coordination mechanisms (Najam et al, 2006). Legitimacy of
some of the multilateral environmental agreements e.g. the UNFCCC especially in the eyes of the
developing countries is also wanting. This is because these countries feel that the developed
nations should play a bigger role given their greater impact on the global environment given their
bigger economies and longer history of pollution.
Although response mechanisms in terms of funds such as the global environmental facility have
been put in place. Most of the OECD countries that are supposed to contribute to such funds have
hardly honored their pledges and requirements as appertains to contributing to the funds. Funding
within the global environmental governance system is also largely geared towards keeping the
system and its institutions going with little actually being directed towards environmental action.
High dependence on voluntary funding which is often earmarked for executing specific programs
or projects makes it difficult for multilateral environmental agreement secretariats and United
Nations agencies to plan and coordinate their activities. There is also a tendency to focus funding
on short term projects (Najum et al 2006)
The projectification and fragmentation of the international governance system is a challenge in
international environmental governance. This can be seen at the national level where action plans
are seen to be too project focused and poorly integrated with national development planning. There
is absence of comprehensive strategies hence lost opportunity to crystalize potential synergies of
different environmental measures. Many of the national action plans for implementation of
multilateral environmental agreements are primarily developed for purposes of attracting
international funding for projects (Sharma, 2009).
The fragmented United Nations system has also led to parallel systems of funding and
implementation. There is a tendency to establish new financing mechanisms for different
negotiation areas presenting challenges to recipient countries. This is due to the different
monitoring reporting and verification system requirements hence increased fragmentation of
administration and institutional structures which translates into heavy duplicative burdens
(Thornton, 2010).
Studies by Thornton (2010) and Thornton (2011) in a number of African countries identify other
challenges to include the fact that funding e.g. climate finance is often supply driven than need
based with low domestic leadership. Secondly, as appertains to this, while recipient countries are
required to establish specific national institutions to manage climate change finance, funders are
not committed to using existing country systems nor support them. Funders also don’t respect the
recipient nations budget cycles, priorities and systems which puts additional stress on already weak
institutions. There is often absence of updated transparent mapping of financing to enable
harmonization and coordination. Funders are also keener to report to their headquarters rather than
sharing information with the governments of the countrys of operation. Thus the recipient
governments often lack information on all the funding available within the country
International financing also leads to projectification and fragmentation of developing countries.
This is as the financed projects and funds are managed by different ministries and agencies. These
projects are weakly linked to the ordinary budgeting and planning ministries and other key

12
ministries. This leads to poorly integrated strategic planning and decision making and distortion
of accountability relationships from citizens to financiers. Externally funded environmental
projects may not be in line with national political and economic priorities e.g. local priorities may
be poverty reduction and food security rather than climate change mitigation (Wingqvist et al,
2012).
Another problem facing global environmental governance is the fact that the congested
institutional terrain is actually more of an appearance than a comprehensive effective global
governance system (Elliot, 1956). The system has so many institutions but is in reality non
inclusive and incoherent despite appearing otherwise in the eyes of the global public. Global
environmental governance is thus more than simple expansion of networks of institutions and
decision makers but rather a political practice that simultaneously reflects, constitutes and masks
global relations to power and powerlessness (Elliot, 1956). State agencies exploit shortcomings of
global environmental governance to enhance their own agendas or wishes even if they are at the
detriment of the environment.
Global environmental governance is neither normatively neutral nor materially benign (Elliot,
1956). Systems of global environmental governance are becoming increasingly irrelevant or
impotent due to the prevailing patterns of globalization such as: imbalances in productivity and
distribution of goods and services, unsustainable progression of extremes of wealth and poverty
and economic growth overtaking environmental gains (Elliot, 1956). Despite these
acknowledgement the process of managing global environmental change within international
relations continues to look to these deficient international regimes for answers (Newal, 2008).
The polarity that exists between the seamless web of ecological interdependence on one hand and
the fragmented state of the international political system is another main cause of problems
experienced in international political related environmental issues. This is because a single
complex and highly integrated ecosystem has to be managed within the constraints of a political
system made of over 170 sovereign states. This political system has historically been prone to
violent conflict and within it cooperation has been difficult to achieve (Hummel & Kingsbury,
1991).
Due to lack of an effective central authority, the existence of anarchy between states is the defining
principle of international relations and a source of inevitable insecurity and conflicts. On this,
therefore the prospects for effective global environmental management are modest indeed.
Anarchy and conflict are the rule and indeed cooperation an exception. Even though this
Hobbesian world image may be rejected under the argument that cooperation does indeed occur.
The difficulties of this cooperation need to form the starting point for any study of the prospects
for global environmental management (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).
Although there are many collective action problems in which states would stand to gain more from
cooperation. This is not the case mainly due to the weaknesses or absence of the institutions
required to stabilize expectations, prevent defections and free riding and to encourage and channel
domestic pressures for international cooperation (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).

13
Interdependence however could also create new elements of instability. This is because increased
susceptibility of domestic politics to external shocks leads to new conflicts. The cost of managing
cooperation have been to be equally shared between states. It also opens up new sources of power
and leverage, exposes states to external vulnerability, is rarely symmetrical and introduces new
connections between international and domestic politics (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991). Collective
environmental management poses a severe and therefore politically sensitive challenge because it
involves the creation of rules and institutions that embody notions of shared responsibilities and
duties that impinge heavily on domestic structures and organization of states (Hummel &
Kingsbury, 1991).
The clash between the character of the international political system and the necessities of national
environmental management has often led to acute skepticism about the state system. This is
because a world of sovereign states is unable to cope with an endangered planets problems. Each
government is mainly concerned with the pursuit of its national goals of which are defined in
relation to economic growth, political stability and international prestige. The political logic of
nationalism therefore generates a system of international relations that is dominated by conflicts
and competition. Such a system only exhibits a modest capacity for international cooperation and
coordination. The distribution of power and authority as well as organization of human effort is
overwhelmingly guided by the selfish drives of nations (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).
Some quarters see the solution to this as being curtailing the sovereign power of states and creation
of supranational authorities. This means creation of a world government with enough coercive
power over fractious nation states geared towards the achievement of planetary common interest.
However such an undertaking is inevitably remote and open to objections. Firstly the nation state
remains largely resilient as a focus for human loyalties and a structure for exercising political
power. There has thus been no consensus that such a development would be desirable.
Secondly such a supranational state would exist to deal with all life issues and not just the
environment. The process towards this capacity would most likely be too difficult leading to
postponement in the implementation of local environmental policies. This would affect the success
of this collective government that would still rely on effective implementation of local
environmental policies by local authorities, the weaknesses of which would be reproduced in this
broader political system (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991)
An alternative to this global leviathan is the decentralization of power and authority. The
proponents of this say that such a move would weaken the competitive drives of the global
economy which intensifies depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation. This
would empower local communities which have greater understanding of their specific ecosystems
on which they depend. The local community based structures also wouldn’t have the opportunity
of displacing environmental problems from one locality or sphere to another. It is also important
given the fact that global environmental governance has so far mainly served to silence local
voices. This is because it would bring back power to the local communities in the global fight
against environmental degradation (Wingqvist et al, 2012).

14
However it has been argued that empowerment of local communities and rational ecological
management are not always consistent. This is because it neglects the broader functions of the state
system in many other fields of human activity. The cost of disrupting the global economic system
would also be enormous and a potent source of conflict. More so, there would still be need for
continued global coordination for effective ecological management. Such global coordination
would be more cumbersome in a system dealing with a higher number of entities i.e. large number
of communities.
Therefore despite the implications of all the challenges on global environmental governance.
Global environmental governance is still a necessity. Rejection of multilateralism in the name of
efficacy and protection of natural interests conflicts with the promotion of international law and
the concept of global public goods although (Hazen, 1997). However some problems can be solved
better locally.
Global environmental governance hence management is also affected by reform of public policies
that encourage forms of development activity, taxation, market creation etc. Political pressures
from businesses and concerns about the impact of the environmental regulation on economic
activity can influence a states’ environmental management.
Another problem facing global environmental governance is that the international political
community is presently based on liberal principles that prioritize individual freedoms and capitalist
systems that make quick and ambitious climate change responses difficult (Edmodson & Levy,
2013). Interest group liberalism is also guided by individual human priorities (Berber & Bartlet,
2005). Groups unable to voice their self-interest such as the minorities without suffrage or the non-
humans are not included in the political compromise.
Addressing environmental problems can also be impeded when citizens of liberal democracies
don’t see environmental problems as impacting their lives or when they lack education to evaluate
the importance of the problem (Matthews, 1991). Democracies don’t have much provision to make
environmental reforms that are not mandated by voters whereas many voters lack incentives or
desire to demand policies that could compromise immediate prosperity. A scheme that connives
of and values the environment beyond its human utility i.e. an environmental ethics could therefore
be crucial for democracies to respond to issues such as climate change (Matthews, 1991).
Alternative forms of democracy favorable to environment however exist. In political theory
deliberative democracy has been discussed as a political model more compatible with
environmental goals. One of this is deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy is a system in
which informed political equals weigh values, information and expertise and debate priorities to
make decisions as opposed to democracy based on interest aggregation (Fishkin, 2009). It
emphasizes informed decisions among citizens in decision making process and encourages
decisions to benefit the common good rather than individual interests (Berber & Bertlet, 2005). It
is a just system since in it reason prevails self-interest (Gutman & Thompson, 2004). The broad
perspective that this model encourages could lead to a stronger engagement with individual
concerns (Berber & Bertlet, 2005).

15
New materialism is another philosophy that is proenvironment. It conceives all materials as having
life or agency (Coole & Frost, 2010). It criticizes frameworks of justice that center on human
attributes, such as consciousness, as insufficient for modern ethical problems that concern the
natural environment. It is a post humanistic consideration of all matter that rejects arguments of
utility that privilege humans. This politically relevant social theory combats inequality beyond the
interpersonal plane (Newman, 2002). People are ethically responsible not only for one another
but also for the physical spaces that they navigate including flora and fauna and the inanimate
matter that sustains it such as soil.
New materialism encourages political action within this world view even though it is incompatible
with economic growth. According to this theory all materials, living or dead, are interrelated in a
mesh. As all matter is interdependent humans have obligation to all parts of the material world
including those that are unfamiliar. New materialism is related to a shift from the view of the
environment as a form of capital to a form of labour (Berber & Bertlet, 2005).
4.0 Global commons and environmental management
Global commons or global common pool resources refer to resources used in common by a number
of countries in the world. These resources are open access resources meaning that they are
everybody’s property and access is free and unrestricted. This makes the resources highly
vulnerable to misuse and overexploitation (Gordon, 1954).
Global commons have traditionally constituted those parts of the planet that fall outside national
jurisdictions and to which all nations have access. These resources are guided by the principle of
the common heritage of mankind. They include the atmosphere, outer space, high seas and
Antarctica. Currently the term has been broadened to include other resources that affect mankind
globally. They therefore also include the tropical rainforests, the cyber space etc. (United Nations,
2013).
Historically access to the global commons was difficult and thus the resources were scarce.
However the advancement of science and technology in recent years and increased demand for
resources is leading to an increase in activities such as deep sea fishing, bioprospecting, navigation,
flight, scientific research and the laying of sub optic cables all of which have an impact on the
global commons (United Nations, 2013). There is also growing interest in particular amongst
regional economic and military alliances in access to the global commons from a trade, security
and critical resources perspective (United Nations, 2013). These resources are therefore under high
abiotic and biotic pressures in most countries of the world especially the developing nations (r
Singh, 2007).
At the same time the world is facing critical environmental challenges most importantly global
warming, ozone layer depletion and rapid environmental degradation in Antarctica. If business as
usual prevails these trends will likely worsen and negatively impact the global commons capacity
to provide ecosystem services for human wellbeing (United Nations, 2013).
The international community recognizes the need to conserve the resources. It has thus developed
a number of conventions and treaties to govern the global commons. These include the United

16
Nations convention on the law of the sea, the Montreal protocol, Antarctica treaty system etc. The
governance of the global commons therefore represents a specific aspect of global environmental
governance. Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance
(United Nations, 2013).
Nonetheless many gaps and challenges remain. One of these is the fact that the frameworks
covering the global commons are complex and structured. Many of the older agreements do not
fully consider the impacts of human activities on ecosystems and non-target species. Numerous
new emerging issues also lack international rules and standards to guide them. E.g. the United
Nations convention on the law of the sea does not cover bioprospecting, ocean fertilization, carbon
sequestration and storage, hydrocarbon exploration and deep sea fishing (United Nations, 2013).
In addition to this modern conservation principles such as the ecosystem and precautionary
principles and tools such as marine protected areas are not comprehensively incorporated in the
frameworks. There also remains geographical gaps in the regional regimes which leave large parts
of the global commons without regional agreements (United Nations, 2013).
There is also a challenge of some countries lacking capacity to observe the existing agreements
especially the developing countries. These countries face a challenge in undertaking expensive
environmental impact assessments or monitoring the global commons due to technological and
financial inadequacies. Landlocked and other geographically disadvantaged states cannot also
effectively participate in activities related to the global commons (United Nations, 2013).
A key challenge facing the global commons is the design of governance structures and
management systems capable of addressing the complexity of multiple public and private interests
subject to often unpredictable changes ranging from local to global (Brosseau et al, 2012). The
management of the global commons requires pluralistic legal entities usually international and
supranational, private and public structured to match the diversity of interests and the type of
resource to be managed and stringent enough with adequate incentives to ensure compliance
(Shafer, 2012).
Global commons therefore face the common problem of how to coordinate the actions of
individual user countries so as to attain an optimal rate of production or consumption for the world
community as a whole (Singh, 2007). Good coordination is however necessitated by the flow of
benefits from the resources being scarce as to be able to meet the users demands (Singh, 2007).
This scarcity comes about as a result of population growth, technological advancement, market
expansion, discovery of new uses for the resources and launch of new international policies and
programs (Singh, 2007).
These resources are therefore subject to what Hardin (1968) called the tragedy of the commons
(Singh, 2007). It is a situation where by individual rationality to get more of a resource ends up in
collective irrationality. This is because the incremental private benefits to an individual nation
from increased use of the resource markedly exceeds the incremental cost associated with the
increased use. This is due to the fact that the benefiting nation only bears a small fraction of the
cost as it is borne by all nations (Singh, 2007). This represents an externality. According to Randall

17
(1975) this problem is a manifestation of either the absence of exclusive property rights,
breakdown of the structure of property rights or institutional arrangements.
MC Kean (1987) identifies three conditions under which owners of global common property
resources fail to cooperate in using it optimally. These include: when the perceived cost of
cooperation to a nation may exceed the benefits, when nations feel that their own contribution to
the collective goal is negligible enabling them to joyride on the contribution of others and when
nations have no assurance or certainty that other nations will honour their contribution whereas
their individual contribution would actually be sufficient to address the existing problem (Singh,
2007).
While MC Keans’ (1987) first observation can be explained by Hardins’ theory. The problem of
non-cooperation is explained by the prisoners’ dilemmas game theory. The classic prisoners’
dilemmas game theory is a good theoretical construct that can be used to explain why nations don’t
cooperate in managing environmental goods and amenities. It also points out to the conditions
under which nations might cooperate (Singh, 2007).
The challenges faced by the global commons therefore imply that there is need for adoption of
active global policies and strategies to create more sustainable structures and processes to mitigate
the tragedy of the global commons in order to avert impeding ecological problems. Any one of a
range of market based and institution based instruments could be used to achieve the goals of such
a management policy. Some of the instruments that could be used include: global prices;
international treaties, conventions and institutions; safe minimum standards; education and
awareness creation aimed at changing the perceptions and priorities of the resource users (Singh,
2007).
More so, although several environmental agreements and protocols have been established as forms
of international law to manage the environment. These instruments are not a panacea to the issues
facing the global commons. Often these instruments are slow to produce the desired effects, tend
to the lowest denominator and lack effective monitoring and enforcement. They also take an
incremental approach to solutions whereas sustainable development principles suggest that
environmental concerns should be mainstream political issues (Michael, 1998).
5.0 Geopolitics and environmental management
Geopolitics is all about power at the big scale, about how the world is organized politically. It is
about how the world is divided into states, blocs, alliances, territories, jurisdictions and
administrative regions. It is about who rules and the political affairs at the planetary scale. It is
about authority and how the world is represented, known, mapped and written about. Geopolitical
discourses presume a single world system designated in knowledge practices derived from
European conquest of much of the planet in the recent centuries (Agnew, 2003).
An example of an environmental issue that is geopolitical in nature is climate change. Climate
change is a recent geopolitical phenomena. This is because the changing weather patterns that it
produces are bringing many changes to the human order of things if at all it is not an ultimate threat
to us all (Dalby, 2012). Harsh warnings that environmental securities may bring catastrophe, war,

18
homelessness to hordes of humanity upsetting social order and bringing about chaos and
disruptions in their wake abound unless the political elites of our times change path soon (Welzer,
2012).
With the growing recognition of the scale of environmental change already in motion, it is clear
that rethinking security has to involve reconceptualizing humanity’s space in the larger order of
things. Doing it requires that the most assumed premises in traditional geopolitical thinking be
rethought precisely. This is because through environmental change we are altering the
circumstances that give rise to geopolitical thinking in the first place (Dalby, 2012).
Globalization is in many ways what climate change is all about. The transformation of the
biosphere that among other things uses fossil fuels to link distant peoples and places together
rapidly is precisely what is causing climate change (UNEP, 2012). The new geopolitical
circumstances of our times is caught in the term Anthropocene by earth scientists. It entails living
in a world where humanity is a new geological force on planet earth leading to a world largely of
our own making. Juxtaposing climate change and geopolitics requires taking this new context very
seriously with the traditional categories requiring very substantial update.
Because we are remaking the world, and creating increasingly artificial circumstances of the
future. It seems that confronting the old logics of geopolitics with new conditions is a pressing
necessity. Thinking carefully about ecological transformation and possibilities of new forms of
geopolitics is what any new consideration of the future world order now has to do. But the danger
remains as it has always for the last couple of decades that old forms of security thinking and
inappropriate mappings of power will be invoked in the face of new circumstances and produce
polities that aggravate rather than mitigate the difficulties.
The fact that the cause of climate change is now widely understood to be anthropocentric
practically means that currently geopolitics is determining the future of the planet. Political leaders
are effectively deciding whether there will be polar ice caps in future by how they choose to tackle
or not tackle greenhouse gas emissions. The key point is that the future conditions of the biosphere
are being decided mostly by default through the decisions of economic and political elites. Unless
decisions are urgently made to effectively reduce the greenhouse gases the ecological conditions
on which humanity lives is completely bound to change (Dalby, 2012).
Geopolitics is therefore no longer the great game of state rivalry but it is literally also about
remaking the playing field. Keeping that crucial though not yet widely accepted point clearly in
mind is key to any thinking ahead about coming decades and all discussion of policy innovations
and related matters. However it seems that geopolitics still remains as being about rivalries
between states as indicated by disagreements in the conference of parties on climate change. This
will continue to hinder cooperative ventures needed to deal with climate change (Dalby, 2012).
It is important to note that while climate change is receiving all the attention these days, there are
other environmental transformations underway. These include the disruption of the natural
arrangements of phosphorous and nitrogen in the production of chemical fertilizers and also
interferences in the Sulphur cycle. Landscapes are also being transformed through extension of
agricultural activity and habitat loss continues apace resulting in species and biodiversity losses.

19
The earths system science needs to clearly understand how all these processes fit together and
where the boundaries within which these systems can operate to maintain equilibrium are in the
safe operating space for humanity (Rockstorm et al, 2009). It is however clearly stated that
humanity has exceeded this space in quite a few directions (Dalby, 2012).
It is therefore not any one single environmental concern that matters now but rather the cumulative
totality of all, of which are beginning to interact in all sort of unpredictable synergies that matters
(Steffan et al, 2011). In that sense environment as a simple category of concern has now been
transcended with the preservationists and romantic premises of environmentalists arguments now
undercut both by the scale of human activity and the growing sophistication of scientific
understanding of ecology (Dalby, 2012).
The most important question now is not how climate change will affect geopolitics but how
geopolitics affect climate change, What decisions political elites make is very key to the ecological
conditions of the future. Past geopolitics has assumed that the earth is the given context for human
struggles and the stage for human dramas. However recent science has made it clear that this old
assumption has been overtaken by events.
Humanity is now a new geomorphic agent on the planet and while relatively speaking we are a
small force in comparison to the forces of nature, human actions are quite large enough to reshape
how the biosphere is organized. It can thus decide how climate will be, how acidic oceans will be
and hence how the stage for the human drama will be arranged. Human actions in future will decide
how the stage looks like as their actions reconfigure the climate systems and the biosphere in new
and unpredictable ways (Dalby, 2012).
Geopolitics has in the past been about how great power rivalries play out but now it is about writing
the rules that bring us the future parameters of the planetary system. Adding this key point into
traditional geopolitics is what considerations of the world order for the next couple of decades
require us to do although there is no guarantee that the political elites will get it nor if the
governance structures will evolve to deal with these issues. It however seems trends are moving
in that direction as activists and political entrepreneurs find new modes of changing things, modes
frequently not subject to the central control of the putative great powers (Dalby, 2012).
The crux of geopolitics in the next generation is not the war plans of the great powers but their
energy consumption plans and the strategies they use to plan the future configuration of cities,
food systems and infrastructure. This though mundane and far from traditional considerations of
politics is what the future configuration of politics is made of, whether clear or not to the decision
makers (Dalby, 2012).
6.0 Environmental movements and environmental management
Environmental movements, organizations and parties have introduced environmental concerns,
alternative ways of life and other green ideas into the political agenda. In some countries well
organized popular green movements exist with active and influential lobbies. In other countries
still, green political parties compete for seats in parliament with other parties. Although green

20
parties are generally political parties with broader agenda, their role is important in introducing
environmental concerns in political decision making process (Love & Weiss, 1998).
The worldwide rise in the environmental movement has also influenced the agenda of other parties
across the entire political spectrum. In Japan for example environmental and antipollution
movements have had a strong impact on local politics. A substantial greening of major political
parties occurred in Britain in the 1980s leading to their making of environmental commitments. In
the U.S.A. environmental issues are part of the democratic and republican parties programs (Love
& Weiss, 1998).
The diffusion of green environmental thinking through the activities of the global media, informed
and spurred by the environmental NGOs is also an important aspect of environmental politics. The
activities of the environmental NGOs have assumed an important place in issue identification,
institution building, monitoring and implementation, agenda setting, normative development and
policy formulation (Hummel & Kingsbury, 1991).
Political processes in environmental management can intensify public concern over environmental
problems leading to the associated institutional pressures on corporations to improve
environmental performance. These pressures have spurred the growth of international regulatory
regimes, national environmental bureaucracies and NGOs. They present a threat to the autonomy
of the market position of leading corporations (Levy, 1997).
The environmental movements, however, despite their great contribution to environmental
management is also to blame for some failures. Much blame for failure has been placed on the
leading environmental organizations (Misati et al, n.d.). Mark Dowie (1995) in his book ‘losing
ground’ notes that the national environmental organizations have crafted an agenda and pursued a
strategy based on the civil authority and good faith of the government. Therein he believes lies the
inherent weakness and vulnerability of the environmental movement. Civil authority and good
faith have however proved to be chimeras in government. The movement, Dowie (1995) also
notes, have also misread and misunderstood the fury of their antagonists.
Mark Stellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (2004) in their book ‘The death of environmentalism’ also
note that environmentalists are not articulating a vision of the future commensurate with the
magnitude of the crisis. Instead they are promoting technical policy fixes like pollution control,
proposals that don’t provide the popular inspiration to deal with the problem. They note that
environmentalists don’t seem to recognize that they are in a culture war (Mark Stellenberger &
Ted Nordhaus, (2004).
Todays environmentalists have chosen to work within the system. Therefore when todays
environmentalists recognize a problem, they believes they can solve that problem by calling public
attention to it, framing policy and program responses for government and industry, lobbying for
those actions and litigating for their enforcement. The environmentalists believe in the efficacy of
environmental advocacy and government action. They believes good faith compliance will be the
norm and that corporations will be made to behave and increasingly weave environmental
objectives into their business strategies (Speth, 2008).

21
Todays environmentalists tend to be pragmatic and incrementalist. Their actions are aimed at
solving problems and often doing so one at a time. They tend to address effects rather than the
causes of problems. Eventually they accept compromises as part of the process and take what they
can get. They believe in solving problems at an acceptable economic cost and often with economic
benefits without significant lifestyle changes or threats to economic growth. They see the solution
as emanating solely from the environmental sector and no much a political concern.
These environmentalists are not focused much on political activity or organizing a grassroots
movement. Electoral politics and mobilizing a green political movement have played second fiddle
to lobbying, litigating and working with government agencies and corporations (Speth, 2008).
6.0 Politicians and environmental management
Politics can create an enabling environment or challenges for environmental management
(Wingqvist et al, 2012). Politicians are not just mediators between competing demands and
interests but they also play an important role in organizing the goal taking process in society. Social
conflicts on goals better explain the persistency of some important environmental issues meaning
that the issue arises in how society deals with conflicting interests and opinions concerning the use
of the environment.
Given the nonexclusive nature of most environmental goods, coordinating all individual claims
requires public decision making which, especially in the Western world, is usually organized on
the basis of representation. In this some representatives determine the goals for environmental use
(Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2002).
The politicians have the task to assess which preferred citizens have the right for environmental
utilization and to set relative weights of needs competing for limited resources and to translate the
highly priority preferences into concrete social objectives for environmental utilization. They thus,
in economic jargon, have to solve the aggregation problem of individual utility functions via
intrapersonal utility valuation (Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2002).
Based on the deterministic model of representative democracy that has dominated public choice
literature. Politicians mediate on the basis of strict self-interest between voters with diverging
desires in order to set social objectives. The need to obtain electoral support causes individual
politicians to ultimately bring their variously shaped interests in line with those of citizens. The
theory predicts that it is only those politicians who best assesses the needs of the populace and
translates them into policy objectives who will survive the competition for voters favour. In other
words it is the voters who completely determine what the politicians do (Dietz & Hoogervorst,
2002)
However it is important to note the fact that voter pressure really comes about once in every four
or five years period i.e. during the elections period. The interval between these periods offers the
representatives a chance to deviate from their electorates will and opportunistically take their own
responsibility. Doing this erodes voter sovereignty and attributes to suboptimal collective decision
making leading to system failure. However in the long run according to public choice theory, the
deterministic model can in principle cope with suboptimality. The system is thought to be self-

22
adjusting since at the end of the day the voters will replace representatives who cannot realize the
wanted and promised social goals.
However in the case of environmental issues the time lag between decision making and apparent
results far exceeds the life time of a political career. This means that this assumed self-regulating
feedback mechanism may actually not work since by the time the impacts of environmental
degradation are felt, the responsible politician has already left office. The long feedback loop in
the case of environmental issues means that the self-adjusting characteristic of the model is not
observed in reality (Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2002).
The deterministic character of public choice theory can also be described as an inadequate
description of what politicians do, at least in respect to environmental issues. The collection of
information and subsequent determination of environmental objectives cannot be considered a
mechanistic process. Off course politicians want to know the ideas and desires of the population
of which will be reflected in the ultimately chosen environmental objectives. However politicians
are not a mechanical extension of citizens or puppets of well-organized interest groups.
As mandated representatives they therefore take decisions independently without perpetual
intermediate consultation with their constituency. This offers them room to consult experts,
develop their own thoughts and try to persuade potential voters of the desirability of their
proposals.
Therefore instead of a deterministic process, public decision making should actually be reviewed
as an evolutionary process (Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2002). In an evolutionary process politicians fill
gaps by taking the role of organizers of processes of collective preference articulation. In modern
democratic society this role consists of organizing, the proposition of alternative public objectives,
analysis of the consequences of attaining these objectives and the comparison of alternatives and
choosing preferred objectives. The deterministic appraisal in the case of environmental issues also
fails because civilians have little knowledge on environmental issues and processes (Dietz &
Hoogervorst, 2002).
7.0 Trends in Africas’ political ecology
7.1 Environmental management in colonial Africa
The African continent is today facing severe economic and environmental problems. Some of these
problems can be traced back to the colonial era (Robert, 1993). Colonization had the general effect
of removing large tracts of land from peoples control without taking into account that community
owned land was part of an effective integrated resource management system. This in turn led to
decreasing the sense of trusteeship to future generations and a reduction in the sense of equity that
had previously constituted a basis for interpersonal relations among members of families and
communities (Dietz & Hoogervorst, 2002)
One of the main challenges facing African countries has been to rid themselves of colonial laws
governing natural resources which are chiefly oriented towards the extraction of resources.
Colonial natural resources management was premised on centralized control of resources which
hindered access to resources especially by rural communities who live around them.

23
The nature of colonization of the African continent included increased access to natural resources
for industrial development of the local communities so as to make them economically independent
of the metropolis but while still continuing to support the metropolis. The colonizers therefore
considered annexation of the territory crucial to achievement of their objectives
Environmental conservation was not known in precolonial Africa since the people then lived in
harmony with their environment. The settlers however introduced measures of environmental
conservation in an attempt to preserve Africas’ pristine wilderness. Based on the fact that their
homelands had long been degraded. They found it easier to promote environmental conservation
in the colonial states than at home where the environment had already been seriously degraded by
industrialization (Government of USA, 1993).
One notable law towards this in colonial Africa was the 1933 convention relative to the
preservation of flora and fauna in their natural state i.e. the 1933. London convention. This was
later replaced by the 1968 Africa convention signed by the governments of the newly independent
African states. The 1933 London convention had been preceded by the 1900 convention for the
preservation of birds and fish in Africa (1900 convention) also signed 1900. This was meant to
regulate the utilization of fauna in Africa and ensure continuous supply of trophy animals for
hunting (Percival et al, 1995). The 1990 convention prescribed certain hunting methods and
designated some animals as dangerous to mankind hence deserving of little protection (Mbote &
Cullet, 1996)
The 1933 London convention superseded the 1900 convention by establishing areas for nature
preservation where human activity would be restricted and advocating the protection of all species.
However it still aimed at preserving the supplies of trophy animals for hunting (Burton, 1996).
The 1933 London convention was therefore a bit farsighted as far as the protection of wildlife was
concerned. Its effectiveness was limited by the failure of the parties to take legislative steps to give
effect to the agreements provisions at the domestic level. Those who did so however also fell short
in terms of enforcement (Mbote & Cullet, 1996)
Colonialism was premised on the desire to ensure control and access to primary resources for
industries in Europe. In an attempt to civilize the colonized, European concepts of property rights
were imported into the African continent to foster progress along paths previously taken by most
European countries during the industrial revolution with the assumption that what had worked for
Europe would work for Africa (Government of USA, n.d.).
Privatization was superimposed by colonial powers upon existing notions of property rights as a
result of misconceptions about the nature and role of local systems in resources management
(Murbury, n.d.). This was in conflict with precolonial notion of property ownership which in most
parts of Africa was centered on communities’ collective arrangements which regulated access to
and use of resources according to collective communal rules based on cultural norms. Overall
colonial rule however emphasized state control as the most effective means of fastening resource
extraction and utilization.
The assumption was that assignment of property rights was a necessary precondition for economic
development, for minimizing land use conflicts, reducing overexploitation and resolving the

24
problem of shared responsibilities over resources (Mbote & Cullet, 1996). This process
undermined the existing status quo and in fact transferred more resources to the already better off
households. Even where the poor obtained private rights to resources, it is doubtful whether their
loss of access to common property resources was compensated (Harold, 1994).
Land was given to settlers and in some places a policy of separate development introduced
whereby Africans were confined to reserves. This concentration of many people in small areas led
to increased pressure on land in such areas. There was gross undermining of community rights as
land was given to colonial settlers leading to creation of a Leviathan state. The acquisition of land
and resources by the colonial authorities led to decentralization that caused breakdown of social,
political and economic structures of the indigenous communities. This state of affairs was inherited
by the African governments upon independence (Mbote & Cullet, 1996)
The colonial governments also introduced exotic crops since they referred African indigenous
crops as inferior. Indigenous forests were cleared and faster growing exotic species planted. This
led to reduced food diversity and loss of animal breeds and crop varieties that were well adopted
to the local climatic conditions (Mbote & Cullet, 1996)
One of the greatest effects of colonization was the disruption of the close relationship between
people and land. Displacement came with introduction of conservation laws which introduced
restrictions on local community’s use of land. Local people were, under colonial conservation
policies, excluded and evicted to new areas against their wishes and without compensation for loss
of property and rights (Michael & Tim, n.d.).
As wildlife access was taken away from the local communities, they now had to rely on unethical
methods to access them. The wildlife had in the past provided proteins to local communities hence
this move had nutritional implications. Generally privatization had severe impacts upon the poor
who rely on common property resources for most of their basic needs and often don’t have an
alternative. The overall process had thus the tendency to increase inequalities both within local
societies and between colonies and the metropoles (Fatma, 1994). Equity has always played an
important role in the management of environmental resources both within a given generation and
with succeeding generations.
By removing management of resources from community control, colonization therefore weakened
the sense of trusteeship that prevented people from depleting resources and the regulatory intra-
community structures that helped to control each users’ harvest of the common resources. This
alienation of local communities from resources by the policies led to their antagonism towards
them. Customary rights over land were not recognized since the right over land was now vested in
the supreme authority (Mbote & Cullet, 1996).
In many communities the existing indigenous structures for resources management were
drastically eroded by policies and legislations that limited community involvement. The
communities lacked the means to implement sustainable resource management principles due to
their lack of control over the resources and lack of recognition by colonial authorities as capable
environmental managers (Fatma, 1994)

25
7.2 Environmental management in post-colonial Africa
Today natural resource management in Africa is part of an intricate web of international, regional
and national legal norms. However the conceptual and normative framework of environmental
management established still draws largely from colonial laws and policies and little has been done
to tailor domestic laws and policies to the needs of African countries generally and local
communities in particular (Mbote & Cullet, 1996).
The impact of colonial rule in environmental management is still widely present. This is because
many countries after independence continued in the development paths charted by their colonial
masters. This means they adopted environmental management frameworks of their colonial
masters. This can be seen in the continued dominance of government in environmental
management which has tended to exacerbate the social and environmental impacts caused by
colonial laws (Mbote & Cullet, 1996).
At the local level independence did not entail the inclusion of communities in environmental
management. These communities continue to be assumed to date. Local people have thus
developed a view of protected natural areas as being state property (Mbote & Cullet, 1996). This
has led to conflicts between them and the government and its officials hence leading to
encroachment e.g. in forests when their access is denied
Retention of strong ties with former colonial masters has led to major influence on resource use
patterns in Africa. The increased privatization of resources has been in response to multilateral
financial institutions of which exemplifies western influence (Thomas, 1995). The failure of laws
and policies to recognize and protect rights of communities has also impacted on individuals’
ability to enforce their rights in the facing of competing claims on resources. Communal notions
of property ownership however still persist in many parts of Africa despite the attempt to stifle it.
The present political systems of many African countries have also hampered their ability to
mobilize political and national commitment to sustainable environmental management through
national laws and public policy. Unrepresentative and repressive systems of the government have
alienated majority of the people including those who live in critical biological biodiversity sites
while militarism and disintegration of the social fabric has led to widespread social disillusionment
(Fatma, 1994). More so widespread corruption and misallocation of resources are stumbling blocks
in achieving sustainable management even where laws and policies exist (Mbote & Cullet, 1996).
The emphasis on privatization of rights to natural resources in both colonial and post-colonial laws
and policies has resulted in unsustainable environmental management practices. It has therefore
been said that African environmentalism excluded native communities to a significant extent
leading to the domination of conservation ideas and activities of European’s (Thomas, 1995). This
Western based environmentalism has been sustained by independent governments with minimal
participation of grassroots communities.
The neglect and distrust of communities as capable environmental managers in the quest for
economic efficiency ensures that even where communities previously managed their resources
sustainably, their efforts were not acknowledged. In other instances social, economic and political

26
institutions of communities have been dismantled and their roles taken over by individuals and
states (Mbote & Cullet, 1996).
8.0 Trends in Kenyas’ political ecology
In Kenya environmental problems are generally attributed to the complex interplay of
socioeconomic, policy and institutional factors aggravated by population growth and rapid
urbanization (Yatch et al, 2007). These negative perceptions grew out of stringent enforcement of
soil and water conservation measures by the colonial settlers during the pre-independence period.
The Swynerton plan of 1954 saw most of the settled land in high and medium potential areas
terraced with coercive and restrictive regulations (Yatch et al, 2007).
The clear disconnect between provisions and enforcement of the law and the sheer lack of public
literacy about these laws have strained government relations with the local communities. This
worsened after independence as farmers rebelled against the colonial era punitive soil and water
conservation regulations. The farmers rebelled and refused to construct new conservation
structures or maintain the existing ones. Since then enforcement of soil and water conservation
regulations has relaxed.
The current state of natural resources management in Kenya can therefore be traced back to the
precolonial and postcolonial experience with respect to the countrys political economy. These can
be divided into three epochs of development transformation.
The precolonial mode of natural resource management was based on communal resource
ownership governed by cultural and religious norms with binding regulations and norms. Low
population pressure, use of simple tools, limited trade and relative abundance of natural resources
ensured that communities met their needs without damaging the environment. The relationship
between the community and their resources was radically transformed at the dawn of colonization.
This transformation was driven by changes in resource rights, use and ownership. Through
gazzettement the colonial government appropriated huge chunks of arable land and forest for
agricultural expansion to provide raw materials for the European market. Forest were declared off
limits to communities who were pushed into crowded colonial reserves (Yatch et al, 2007). These
reserves were pools of cheap for the settler/s farms. Coercive and restrictive law enforcement and
economic deprivation caused conflicts between the governed and the governors providing the
impetus for Kenya liberation campaign.
After independence the government continued to enact laws and pursued governance structures
that reduced the stewardship rights of communities over natural resources. Kenyas post-colonial
government employed a vertical planning approach in which communities were treated as passive
recipients of rather than active players in natural resource management.
Integrated policy and legislative reforms, albeit minimal, started in the 1980s. As the governments
resources dwindled and the population increased, the authorities saw the need to promote
collective action involving local communities in natural resource management. This was reflected
in Kenyas, national development plan of 1974 to 1978 and in subsequent policy and legislative
frameworks. Reform based initiatives at the national were catalyzed by international processes

27
beginning with the Stockholm conference on environment and development of 1972 and
establishment of the national environmental secretariat.
Kenyas participation in the multilateral environmental agreements and the earth summits in Rio
and Johannesburg can be seen as the turning point for mainstreaming environmental concerns into
longterm economic development planning. This new thinking opened up opportunities among
different stakeholders for sustainable natural resource management that continued into the new
millennium. However this was not without challenges as many including the business sector and
the large scale farmers viewed new development such as EIA as antidevelopment.
However over the years resource users in Kenya have come to grips with the reality of natural
resource conservation for sustainability purposes. Today Kenyas’ governance structures provide
more space for the integration and implementation of innovative strategies. The current devolution
of natural resource management provides opportunities for real community participation in
planning and decision making processes.
However despite Kenyas efforts to adopt a bottom up approach in environmental management
many critical decisions still remain a preserve of the central government. This double standards
have perpetuated inequitable resource distribution especially in rural areas. Rural people are thus
largely dependent on land causing high pressures on it. Without a comprehensive approach to
sustainable livelihoods they are degrading the very resources on which they depend on.
The policy context in Kenya is also constantly changing. Macro and micro economic policies
interact at different scales influencing natural resource management strategies. The policy
formulation approach is multisectoral but is often centralized with devolved structures providing
only for local level implementation. This has had ambivalent results at different scales.
9.0 Policy, policy making and environmental management
Policy making is the process of transformation which turns political inputs into political outputs.
It is the mechanism through which society collective demands are monitored by the political
system for conversion into action. It is developing a set of rules, roles and procedures which guide
behavior and shape expectations within which a variety of connected and related decisions can be
made (O’ Riordan, 1976)
Policy making involves creation of a decision making environment. This is important given the
fact that often environmental management is affected by decisions that are outside the confines of
environmental authorities than internal policies. Improving environmental outcomes is thus also
largely dependent on external factors i.e. the enabling environment of which include policy making
(Speth, 2008).
Policy making can only occur under certain conditions. The first condition is the support to the
polity which is given the authority to allocate power and determine social values. Secondly there
must be legitimization of the system (O’Riordan, 1976). This is because in order to exert power
and execute decisions, the political system must regularly solicit support and the validity of its
measures. This is done through elections, referendums, public hearings and commissions of

28
inquiry, consultants and requests for public response all which are examples of legitimization
mechanisms (Edelman, 1964).
The third condition is political consensus. This is because for the policy making process to function
effectively all those who participate in it must agree to certain basic rules and accept a structure of
role specialization. This is necessary to sanction leadership and implement policy implementation
(O’ Riordan, 1976).
Policy making and review takes place in the context of the countries overriding development
strategies and broader policy reforms. These processes provide an excellent opportunity to
formulate outward looking policies but the process is only valuable if it can be exploited by
proactive leaders, developers and environmental planners and managers as well as if the
knowledge and information are used to inform sound decisions (Yatch et al, 2007)
The public usually has trust on the representatives charged with the role of making policy
decisions. However given the lower level of understanding of environmental issues by the public
the policy makers may at times make decisions that don’t represent the interest of the public or
their constituency. Such decisions often lead to environmental degradation (O’ Riordan, 1976).
Public environmental policy is vital and needs to be done in the right manner. Public environmental
policy can encourage managers to view environmental issues as opportunities rather than threats.
This will help the managers reduce the ambiguity and unpredictability surrounding environmental
technologies and information. It may also encourage the transmission of this view throughout the
organization (Sharma, 2000)
Public environmental policy has traditionally emphasized command and control environmental
regulations. While these regulations have protected the environment, they tend to promote end of
pipe pollution controls rather than pollution prevention. They also tend to impose steep costs on
both the firms and regulators.
A growing belief in the need to provide flexibility to firms and lower the cost of environmental
protection has led many governments to consider using programs that encourage voluntary actions
to pollution control as well as incentives based instruments to alter behavior vis a vis pollution
control. The interest in promoting voluntary environmental action and pollution prevention has
been accompanied by a growing number of business actions to change corporate culture and
management practices via the introduction of environmental management systems (Henningies &
Sadorsky, 2002).
Industry level environmental management codes of environmental management and international
environmental management systems certification such as the ISO 14000 series represent such
organizational change within corporations. They represent an effort for self-regulation by defining
a set of formal environmental policies, goals, strategies and administrative procedures for
improving environmental performance (Coglianese &Nash, 2011).
Environmental management policies, regulations and institutions have therefore gone through
major changes during the last few decades in response to increasing public awareness of
environmental issues. Gradually the traditional view of environmental issues as “add ons” has been

29
replaced by a proactive approach to environmental management that recognizes the need to
influence human and institutional behavior and management practices beyond technological
requirements. Public concern about the impacts of economic activity on the environment and
human health has gradually drawn policy makers towards the need to establish an environmental
framework that can properly address the issues (Love & Weiss, 1998).
9.1 Kenyas’ legal and policy framework for environmental management
Various laws and policies have been formulated to address environmental management issues in
Kenya. These include overall and sectoral frameworks.
The Kenyan constitution, 2010 has provisions for environmental management. These include
chapter four on rights and freedoms, chapter five under environment and natural resources and
chapter ten on judicial authority and legal systems. The fourth schedule of the constitution has
provisions for the distributions of functions for the county and national government on
environmental management while the fifth schedule stipulates the legislations to be enacted by
parliament for environment. Environmental rights and freedoms are presented in article 42 which
states that every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment. Chapter five part two
gives details on obligations, enforcement, agreements and legislations relating to the environment.
The environmental management and coordination act (amended 2015) is the main legal framework
for environmental management and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto in
Kenya. It aims at achieving improved legal and administrative coordination of the diverse sectoral
initiatives in order to improve national capacity for environmental management. It establishes
NEMA as the apex agency for environmental management in Kenya.
Various regulations and guidelines have been formulated by the authority for its operationalization
of the environmental management and coordination act. These regulations include the air quality
regulations; the environmental impact assessment and audit regulations; the water quality
regulations; the controlled substances regulations; conservation of biodiversity resources and
access to genetic resources and benefit sharing regulations; noise and excessive vibration pollution
regulations and the wetland, riverbanks, lakeshores and seashores management regulations.
We also have the draft deposit bonds regulations; draft tyre wastes regulations and the draft e-
waste regulations. The various guidelines formulated under the act include the strategic
environmental impact assessment guidelines; the national solid waste management strategy; the
national guidelines on safe management and disposal of asbestos and the national sand harvesting
guidelines.
There are also various sectoral laws for management of the environment. The agricultural act
(revised edition 2012) 1986 is an act of parliament to promote and maintain stable agriculture
practice, provide for the conservation of the soil and stimulate the development of agricultural land
in accordance with the accepted practices of good land management and husbandry. It provides
for establishment of general rules for preservation, utilization and development of agricultural land
in Kenya

30
The energy act chapter 314 revised edition 2012, 2006 is an act of parliament to amend and
consolidate the law relating to energy to provide for the establishment, powers and functions of
the energy regulation commission, the rural electrification authority and for connected purposes.
It provides for promotion and use of renewable energy technologies including but not limited to
biodiesel, biomass, bioethanol, charcoal, fuelwood, solar, wind, tidal waves, hydropower, biogas
and municipal wastes. It also provides for a national energy efficiency and conservation program.
The forest conservation and management bill, 2014 set the way towards the new forest act. This is
an act of parliament to provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management
including conservation and rational utilization of all forest resources, including public, private and
community forests, for socioeconomic development of the country.
The act establishes the Kenya Forest service charged with the role of managing forests in Kenya.
More so the act sets the stage for community and public participation in forest resources
management and establishes community forest associations. Incentives and support for forest
conservation is also provided by the act including means for enforcement and compliance with
laws for forest protection
The national water bill, 2014 is meant to establish the new water act. The act provides for the
regulation, management and development of water resources, water and sewerage services and
matters connected thereto to in Kenya. It states that water resources is vested in and held by the
government in trust for the people of Kenya. The act establishes the water resources regulation
authority to serve as an agent of the national government and regulate the management and use of
water resources. The act also establishes the water harvesting and storage authority charged with
among other roles the role of developing a water harvesting policy and enforcing the water
harvesting strategy.
It bestows on all the people of Kenya the right to clean and safe water in adequate amounts and to
reasonable standards of sanitation as stipulated in the constitution. The act also provides for the
establishment of a water sector trust fund to provide grant to counties, support marginalized areas
and underserved urban areas. It also establishes the water tribunal to hear and determine appeals
in the water sector.
The wildlife conservation and management act, 2013 provides for the protection, conservation,
sustainable use and management of wildlife in Kenya and for connected purposes. It provides for
the formulation of five year period wildlife management strategies to prescribe the principles,
objectives, standards, indicators, procedures and incentives for the protection, conservation,
management, sustainable utilization and control of wildlife resources. It provides for establishment
of the Kenya Wildlife Service to manage Kenyas’ wildlife resources and the county wildlife
conservation and compensation committee.
More so, the act provides for a wildlife endowment fund to develop wildlife incentives; manage
and restore protected areas and conservancies; protect endangered species, habitat and ecosystems;
support wildlife security operations and support community wildlife initiatives. It also provides
for the establishment of a wildlife research and training institute to undertake wildlife research and

Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects

Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects

Similar to Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Political ecology of environmental management; a critical review of some relevant aspects