VI. PROBLEMS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

[ VI-A | VI-B | VI-C | VI-D | VI-E | VI-F | VI-G | VI-H | VI-I | VI-J ]

B. Institutional and legal framework

The Malaysian concept of a national environmental agenda has its roots in the first United Nations conference on the environment held in Stockholm in 1972, following which the government enacted the Environmental Quality Act, 1974. The Act encompasses a number of sectors and provides for the protection and enhancement of environmental quality. To implement the Act, the Department of Environment was established, initially under the Ministry of Local Government and Environment and later placed under the responsibility the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment.

The establishment of the Department of Environment itself was insufficient for the formalized incorporation of environmental dimensions in the national planning process. That goal was achieved through a study with World Bank support, eventually taking the form of a chapter on Development and the Environment in the Third Malaysia Plan (1976-1980) and providing the first comprehensive statement of the national agenda for the environment. Although environmentally-related legislation existed prior to the Third Malaysia Plan, initiatives on dealing with environmentally-related issues were carried out a piecemeal basis.

An earlier chapter on legislative and regulatory arrangements clearly shows the divided nature of legislative and jurisdictional competencies in Malaysia. Therein lay a major problem with the implementation of national environmental policies. The federal, State and concurrent lists of the federal Constitution neatly divide the areas of competence. Currently, there are 33 federal environmentally-related forms of legislation in Malaysia. At the federal level, legislation covering planning is generally adequate in covering a wide area of activities. At the same time, the federal Constitution vests significant powers in the State governments on matters related to land, housing, mining, forestry and fishing. It is the development of those sectors, without proper regard for the long-term environmental concerns, that raises the issue of coordination and implementation of environmental measures at the local level. Despite the presence of federally mandated policies and legislation on the environment, the adoption and implementation of those measures is often patchy and selective.

Parallel to the numerous forms of environmentally-related legislation, many agencies are also entrusted with the management and enforcement of those laws. Those agencies have to approve various aspects of development activity. Thus an application to start and operate an industrial project may require the submission of applications to a number of agencies for approval. Environmental concerns for a project include, for example, air, water and noise pollution, industrial safety, health and sanitation, as those aspects relate to the welfare of workers, the surrounding population, land use, resource conservation and wildlife protection. Various agencies are responsible, with each agency acting independently and generally showing concern only within its own sphere of jurisdiction.

While there is much scope for discussion and coordination of projects at the planning stage through the various interagency planning committees, that type of coordination mechanism is wanting at the implementation stage of projects. The existing administrative structure provides little opportunity for interaction among the agencies involved. Channels of communication are often slow. Project coordination groups have been set up at various levels to overcome those constraints. The groups mainly comprise the project sponsors and the technical departments, such as the Public Works Department and Drainage and Irrigation Department. The Department of Environment officers very rarely sit in at the meetings of the groups. The groups are, more often than not, concerned with the implementation of physical projects. Without a body or person to champion environmental issues at the implementation level, and with project monitoring systems that are heavily biased towards physical and financial targets, it is no surprise that environmental measures get relegated to the background. Furthermore, problems crop up when there is a mix of local, State and federal interests to be satisfied.

The Planning Legislation (Act 267) has vested the Mayor of Kuala Lumpur with the power to plan for the City Hall. The Mayor is assisted by two committees, i.e., the Town Planning Committee and the Technical Subcommittee. The Town Planning Committee is serviced by the Technical Subcommittee. The Technical Subcommittee ensures that all technical requirements of the various departments are met before plans are submitted to the Town Planning Committee. It is at that level that the Department of Environment has an avenue to voice its concerns regarding development application within City Hall jurisdiction.

After the federal and State levels, the third level of administration is the local government. Although local authority is a State matter, Parliament may legislate with respect to local government (via provisions in the Constitution) to ensure uniformity of law and policy. Among other matters, local authorities are responsible for:

1.Urban services

2.Solid waste disposal

3.Public health

4.Parks and gardens and recreational facilities

5.Drainage and sewerage systems

6.Traffic planning

7.Proper land-use planning

8.Building and development control

9.Special community development projects such as the relocation of hawkers.

From the above discussions, it is clear that the jurisdiction at all three levels cuts across a wide number of sectors, some of which overlap. The development or management of some of those sectors has environmental implications. That three-tier system of government is administratively neat and simple. However, it creates a number of problems when the federal, State and local authorities attempt to carry out development in their respective areas.

In the federal system of government, as followed by Malaysia, national policies are set at the federal level while the States largely control the natural resources and their exploitation. In general, that by itself should not pose a problem in Malaysia where there is a strong federal government and where most State governments are part of the ruling party. At the local authority level councillors are appointed by the ruling party. Nevertheless, problems with coordination do exist.

At the federal level, Parliament is the highest legislative body, with responsibility for approving development plans and authorizing expenditure. The Cabinet acts as the executive body and it discusses and approves major policies before they can be implemented. To assist the Cabinet and coordinate ministerial activities, three councils have been established under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister: the National Action Council; the National Economic Council; and the National Security Council. The National Development and Planning Commission, chaired by the Chief Secretary to the government, formulates plans for national development and makes recommendations on the allocation of resources. In 1993, the National Development and Planning Commission expanded its mandate to include the integration of environmental concerns into planning. In the process it brought in a holistic approach to environmental planning at the highest level. The Department of Environment was further strengthened with the establishment of regional branches. At the same time, special Environmental Units were set up within a number of local authorities. City Hall of Kuala Lumpur has an Environmental Unit within its Health Department. The Economic Planning Unit is the secretariat for the National Development and Planning Commission, and it undertakes sectoral planning including environmental issues.

There is sufficient environmentally-related legislation at the federal, State and local government levels. However, the mere existence of legislation does not guarantee effective implementation of those laws for the protection and enhancement of the environment. The Seventh Malaysia Plan recognizes that "despite government effort in implementing environmental laws and regulations, it was found that enforcement measures needed to be further enhanced to ensure that laws and regulations were fully complied with". The present penalty structure, which encourages payment of penalties instead of compliance, needs to be reviewed with the objective of instituting a stiffer penalty structure.

Top