III. MECHANISMS FOR INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS INTO AGRICULTURAL POLICY

[ III | III-A | III-B | III-C | III-D | III-E | II-F ]

F. Implementation of the mechanisms

[ F | F-1 | F-2 | F-3 ]

2. Weaknesses of the mechanisms

Successful enforcement of the Environmental Quality Act and other environmental resources legislation and the implementation of environmental policies can be realized only if there is full cooperation between the federal and State authorities. A number of institutions are responsible for the management of environmentally-related problems and there are also overlaps in environmentally-related legislation (table 5). When there is an overlap in government agencies in charge of certain environmentally-related problems, there is always the issue of who is more responsible for overcoming such problems. Certain agencies are given powers under certain types of legislation to take action; however, they are not doing so because they have inadequate manpower and funds. In fact, some enabling legislation does not contain criteria and standards for enforcement purposes. Furthermore, most of those institutions consider the Department of Environment to be solely responsible for managing all aspects of the environment. However, the fact remains that there are also a number of areas where the Department of Environment can only act as an adviser and coordinator.

Although the Department of Environment has a number of regional offices, it still lacks enforcement officers. The problem of inadequate personnel is faced not only by the Department of Environment, but also by other government agencies and local authorities in charge of managing and enhancing the environment. At the local authority and District Office levels, the situation is more serious because many of the limited number of enforcement officers have not been trained for environmental enforcement jobs, and they lack knowledge about which provisions to apply under the relevant types of legislation.

EQA authorizes the minister to prescribe the level of acceptable conditions and it is only pollution over and above that permitted level that attracts liability. The provision of "acceptable conditions" is controversial in the view of some environmentalists. If the discharge of factory effluents is within acceptable conditions the factory is not liable for prosecution even if the effluents severely damage the environment or if the effluents discharged are different from the nature or quantity specified in the licence issued by the Department of Environment. The exception is that the Department is entitled to recover fees for the discharge of such pollutants.

The EIA procedure was designed to follow the integrated project planning concept requiring EIA to be carried out at the prefeasibility stage. However, the lack of adequate studies as well as late submissions of such reports have reduced EIAs to a mere formality. Other problems raised since the start of EIAs have included: inadequate awareness of the strength of EIA as a planning tool; delays in obtaining decisions on EIA reports, which are perceived as a stumbling block to development and, in turn, the cause of late submissions by project proponents; and problems related to legal and enforcement matters. Based on Department of Environment records, the weaknesses of EIA reports include:

• Poor descriptions of project concepts and inadequate statements of need;
• A lack of baseline data on environmental quality;
• Poor predictions of impacts, particularly in quantitative terms;
• Insufficient, or a total absence of, alternatives for mitigation or recommendations of the most effective control measures;
• A lack of alternative sites, production technology and pollution controls;
• The failure to propose an environmental monitoring programme;
• Inconsistency in the provision of information.

In the Pesticides Act, 1974, no legislation is provided to cover pesticide use, waste and disposal. A farmer can spray as much and as often as he wishes, so long as it is not a banned product. Pesticide waste can comprise the pesticide itself (such as old stock, leftovers or spillage), packaging, the diluted product, contaminated clothing or other materials, and rinsing water. Some more important and crucial areas are neglected, including:

• Safety measure for workers engaged in the manufacture of pesticides and who are daily exposed to such chemicals;
• The safe transportation of pesticides in bulk;
• The safe disposal of used pesticide containers;
• Levels of pesticide residues in food;
• The safe disposal of toxic wastes from pesticide manufacturing.

The lack of legislation to cover the vital areas listed above reflects a lack of an overall perspective of pesticide management.

In all the above described mechanisms, there appears to be a common problem: the lack of enforcement. The main cause appears to be the lack of manpower in the organizations concerned and a lack of proper training for enforcement personnel. Furthermore, since the laws are statutory, they are to a certain extent interpretative in nature in the sense that they do not always contain clear definitions. Finally, the fines or penalties are too small and they fail to deter would-be polluters.

In addition, as a result of unclear definitions within the laws, many conflicts surface between the federal and the State. The Malaysian Bakun case is the most outstanding example in such conflicts.

Top