Equity
Within Nations
Proximity
to problems
Inequities
leading to problems
Impacts
of measures
•
Inequity in decision
making
Equity
Between Nations
International
Economic System
Global
Warming and Equity
References
Site
Map
|
Inequities in power lead to inequities in people's ability to influence decisions affecting their environment. Many of the tools of analysis being promoted for environmental decision-making do not pay adequate attention to distributional issues. Cost&endash;benefit analysis is one example (discussed in part 2). It does not take into consideration how the costs and benefits are distributed&emdash;that is, who bears the costs and who gains the benefits. Environmental impact statements, which can include cost&endash;benefit analyses, look at the costs and benefits in aggregate; a project is said to be justified if the total benefits outweigh the total costs. It is argued that such distributional concerns are beyond the scope of cost&endash;benefit analysis, and that compensation for those who lose out is a political matter. Yet if an EIS does not consider the distribution of costs and benefits, it could be said that it is covering up the politics of the project. It has also been argued that existing decision-making structures do not represent all sectors of society. Robert Bullard (1992) argues that environmental racism in the USA involves excluding coloured people from decision-making bodies, such as boards and city councils and industrial commissions. In Australia, various groups&emdash;including Aborigines, migrants, young people and women&emdash;have also complained that they are underrepresented in the decision-making process. Valerie Brown and Margaret Switzer (1991) have argued that the debate on sustainable development in Australia has left women out by ignoring women's industries, paying scant attention to the household sector and having very few women on the ESD working groups. They point out that women tend to make up the majority of people in the low-income groups in most countries, and are therefore among the first to feel the impacts of inequities arising from environmental problems and measures to alleviate them. Brown and Switzer point out that women tend to place higher priority on combating pollution, and on nature conservation and social and environmental issues than men, who tend to place more priority on economic issues. They argue that 'a national ESD strategy cannot be effectively implemented without the informed participation of women' (p. 4). The need for more public participation in achieving sustainable development is generally recognised in principle but tends to be neglected in practice. The public consultation process associated with the ESD working groups was manifestly inadequate. The draft working group reports were open for public comment for a short time, during which a series of 'community consultation forums' were held. One-day forums were held in all the capital cities as well as Bendigo, Albany, Dubbo and Rockhampton. At each forum there were a limited number of topics for discussion. For example, those attending the Sydney forum were able to choose one of three topics to discuss: 'sustainable cities', 'industry and the environment&emdash;end of pipeline solutions vs clean technology', or 'energy use and abuse'. They were divided into very small groups for this discussion, and did not have an opportunity to express their concerns directly to the ESD working group members. Apart from this very limited opportunity, which was supposed to suffice the three million to four million people living in the Sydney area, the only other input an individual could make was through a written submission.
Source: Beder, Sharon, The Nature of Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., Scribe, Newham, 1996, pp. 166-185. |
Inequity
in decision-making structures