The Benefits and Disadvantages of State-Based Environmental Management - Case Study Example

Institution of affiliation: Name: Professor: Course: Date Compare the benefits and disadvantages of state-based environmental management with stakeholder-based environmental stewardship. Environmental management has been deemed crucial for many years with many people debating on which system is better. In most cases, the environmental management mandate is always given to two bodies, that is, the state and stakeholders. Each of these two groups hold significant role depending on the nature, size and type of environmental management (Crows, 2010). This paper will thus look at the benefits as well as the disadvantages of a state owned environmental management system vis a vis stakeholder based environmental system. State based environmental management is where the mandate of overseeing the manner in which various environmental systems operate is bestowed on the state. In this regard, the state manages and coordinates all the activities that revolve along this line (Nancarrow & Syme, 2008). In addition, the state is responsible for appointing individuals who will be responsible for controlling the organization. In this system, the state engages in other responsibilities, which include transforming the various environmental consideration integrations to policies, plans, projects and programs that help in management of environmental resources. The state also takes stock of the various natural resources that the country is endowed with. In addition, they examine land use at different places to see the quantity and quality of natural resources. This system of environmental management has a number of advantages as compared to the others that are used around the world. Below are some of the advantages of using this system of environmental management. Advantages There are adequate resources to help in environmental management. State owned bodies enjoy access to unlimited state resources to help in managing their structures. The same case applies on the state owned environmental management system. In such states, the environmental management ministries can adopt very advanced models to manage the environmental resources (Saxena, 2010). For instance, when setting projects, they enjoy sates funding hence making them go about such procedures efficiently and swiftly without any financial deficiencies. At the same time, most state managed environmental systems normally have a record of coming up with high quality projects in their structures. State based environmental management also enjoys state protection policies. In many states, the bodies assigned with the environmental management responsibility normally lack the powers to prosecute individuals who engage in environmental hazard activities. As a result, such people always continue with their wrong doings in ruining the environment. An environmental system under state care ensures that persons found guilty of environmental pollutions or irregularities are prosecuted in courts. This therefore makes it easy to manage and control such irregularities. Most states normally require the individuals charged with the responsibility of managing the environmental ministries to present annual reports about their performance. This acts as a watchdog in evaluating the performance of such ministries. Because of the pressure that the state may be constantly putting on these individuals to perform, there is a level of consistency that is achieved. The push for quality results helps in keeping them on toes hence producing the best in terms of environmental management. Most states also offer training for the individuals entrusted with the responsibility of environmental conservation. This is important in equipping them with the necessary skills to help them in managing the environmental resources within the state. Such trainings expose them to various procedures and steps that can significantly help in managing the environment effectively. Similarly, constant training helps them in knowing the modern methods of environmental conservations. The state based environmental management systems may not be perfect hence; they are bound to have some weaknesses. Below are some of the advantages that may be accrued to this system. Ineffective use of state resources in environmental management: a number of state bodies cite corruption as one of their major problems. Most officials will use the state funds for their own personal gains. As a result, the assigned tasks and responsibilities will fail since the projects will not get sufficient resources for management. Most state owned bodies especially those charged with group responsibility tend to relax a bit when delivering their responsibilities. This mostly occurs when no specific person is held accountable for a given task. In most cases, these persons assume that in case of any underperformance, no one will be help personally responsible for the failure. As a result, most of these ignore their duties or perform them shoddily. Most state based environmental management systems are theoretically autonomy, but in actual practice, they are not (Theobald, 2008). This is due to the influx of political interferences by the politicians. Therefore, since they are majorly dependent on the government when making certain important policy decisions, they are bound to encounter continuous opposition from the government especially when such actions are not well understood by the concerned government. Such interference from the government greatly demeans the operations of these bodies. Most government-controlled organizations tend to hire civil servants to be in charge of these environmental management organizations. Since most of these persons are not technical, they often fail to manage with the required levels of effectiveness. In the end, such organizations are bound to fail since the elected persons are not professionals, rather just civil servants. A number of states managed bodies normally experience some level of slackness in operations and management in the public eye. The officials in charge of such are not as competent as those on the private sectors, hence causing the organizations activities and programs to lag behind. Stakeholder-based environmental stewardship This is where environmental management mandate is given to a group of people who in one way or the other the environmental wellbeing affects their daily lives (P, 2011). Thus, stakeholder based environmental stewardship takes into account the various values and interests that the stakeholders have and seeking to find solutions throughout the project duration. This type of environmental management is very good since it helps in achievement of strategic objectives by involving the internal and external surroundings and setting up a constructive relationship among the shareholders. Benefits of stakeholder-base environmental stewardship Helps in identifying positive relationships that exists between stakeholders, which can further be translated to partnerships hence causing the stakeholders to work in harmony (Whites, 2011). As a result, trust is built hence translating into effectiveness in performance of these actions. In stakeholder-based stewardship, the project is awarded the relative interests, importance, and power that it deserves. In this case, the project may involve environmental management; here the stakeholders will offer their best in terms of input to facilitate the success of that project. Stakeholders often do this since they are fully aware of the effects of the projects outcome. Consequently, the stakeholder-based system has well-organized management relationships. Such relationships refer to the manner in which these personalities carry out their tasks. Since in this system, individuals are given responsibilities, and each is held accountable, they are bound to work hard (Thabrew, 2009). Such healthy working relationships ensure proper use of available resources to achieve the anticipated outcome. Risks are easily identified; since most stakeholders stand a chance of benefiting or incurring loss due to failure of their projects, they are always vigilant on things that can easily result to failure within the system. This helps in ensuring that the projects within their grasps are done perfectly and all the necessary cautions taken to prevent its failure. In the long run, the projects are bound to succeed since the stakeholders are taking all the necessary cautions. Stakeholders also normally put their heads together and come up with decisions and strategies that facilitate proper environmental management. Such strategies are normally targeted towards ensuring that the set objectives are achieved. This unity in decision making enhances high levels of productivity and coordination seeking results. Since the stakeholders operate through their own decisions without any external interference, they earn great acceptance not only by other stakeholders but the general public as well (Blairs, 2008). This acceptance makes them influential and they can easily communicate to people procedures in regards to environmental conservation. Disadvantages May lack proper fund to run their projects; most nongovernmental organizations normally lack sufficient resources to manage their projects. Most of these NGOs lack government support and operate on aide basis hence these may not execute their services effectively. Stakeholders may also lack the powers and authority to prosecute individuals who violate the stipulate environmental rules. Lack of such powers can make their efforts fruitless since it will be demeaning their attempts hence pulling them back. Internal conflicts among the stakeholders can easily result into disagreement among the stakeholders themselves. These may come because of difference in opinions among them hence causing such (Behra & Khan, 2009). The best remedy for these conflicts is setting up rules and regulations governing their operations as well as appointing a body that will oversee the manner in which the body performs its functions. Most stakeholders environmental management systems are always small in size hence cannot fully and satisfactorily manage various environmental projects put before them. Their small size minimizes their scope as well as their ability to perform excellently in line with their set objectives. Conclusion Both the stakeholders’ environmental management systems and the state based systems are effective in managing the environmental programs. The major differences only come in terms of funding sources and level of commitment of the officials towards attainment of the set goals and objectives. References Behra, H. P., & Khan, M. S. (2009). Environmental management. Mumbai: Himalaya Pub. House. Blairs, K. (2008). State based environmental management . Environmental Management, 3(5), 477-477. Crows, P. (2010). Environmental management systems . Las Vegas, Nev.: Nevada Site Office. Nancarrow, B. E., & Syme, G. J. (2008). The development of stakeholder-based principles for defining environmental flows in modified rivers. Canberra?: CSIRO Australia. Nancarrow, B. E., & Syme, G. J. (2009). Implementing stakeholder-based river management committeesfor maintaining environmental flows. Canberra?: CSIRO Australia. P, D. (2011). Editorial Board/Publication Information. Journal of Environmental Management, 72(4), CO2. Saxena, H. M. (2010). Environmental management. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Thabrew, L. (2009). Stakeholder-based life cycle assessment application in multi-stakeholder decision-making contexts for sustainable development planning and implementation. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida. Theobald, R. H. (2008). Environmental management. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Whites, P. (2011). Environmental management systems and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Read More