Panel 1: Relationship between Good Governance and Environmental Compliance and Enforcement
Moderator: Sir John Harman, Chairman, Environment Agency (England and Wales)

Sir John Harman opened the panel by expressing his hope that the panel on good governance would set the theme for the rest of the conference -- why good governance is essential for compliance and enforcement, and why compliance and enforcement are essential for good governance. He also emphasized that cooperation among implementing authorities is essential. (Draft Summary)

State Secretary Pieter van Geel affirmed the Netherlands' support for environmental compliance and enforcement endeavors in the Netherlands and the EU, noting their importance for present and future generations. He noted the need to create a level playing field for business. After offering general definitions of "good governance" and "rule of law," and reiterating that both are essential for achieving sustainable development, he observed that weakness in the rule of law devastates the confidence of economic actors and investors, which leads to a lack of investment that deprives government of needed resources. He stressed the need to develop a culture of compliance to replace cultures of non-compliance and corruption. He ended by highlighting the critical role that INECE has to play as the global network for professionals dedicated to environmental compliance and enforcement and by emphasizing that the Dutch government supports capacity building, networks, and a level playing field. (Draft Summary)

Kenneth Ruffing reviewed OECD's good governance principles (rule of law, accessibility, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness, responsiveness, and having a forward vision). He noted that good governance is necessary but insufficient for ensuring better environmental management. He stressed that specific elements are needed for environmental governance, including: development of science-based objectives appropriately reflected in laws; attention to the full regulatory cycle; use of an appropriate mix of instruments; development of an appropriate institutional framework; clear delegation of responsibilities; provision of information including the right of access to that information; public participation; and access to an impartial judiciary for environmental matters. He also discussed the role of economic instruments and the importance of cost-effective approaches. (Draft Summary)

Providing an African perspective, Jonathan Allotey discussed the interplay between traditional systems of governance (e.g., customs, practices, systemic taboos, rituals) and modern systems of governance (e.g., written and formal policies, legal instruments, rules of practice, and formal institutions). Traditional systems are local, adaptive, participatory, and understood, whereas modern systems tend to be more centralized and confusing to local people. He suggested that modern and traditional systems can live side by side to ensure that the environment is protected. (Draft Summary)

Ladislav Miko emphasized the need to learn from experiences of countries at different stages of economic and social development, so that enforcement and compliance suggestions are realistic. Tools from more advanced countries may only be available and functional there, while premature use of those tools in other countries may result in misuse. In the Czech Republic and other former communist regimes, law had been used as a tool against the public, resulting in a tradition of noncompliance and breaking the law that persisted even after the advent of political change. He stressed the absence of public support, sufficient resources, experience and expertise, coherence among state bodies, and feedback on outcomes. He also suggested the need for some kind of open evaluation of country compliance with environmental standards. (Draft Summary)