[Lee Pil-Ryul] Environmental Movement Needs Urgent Reform to Overcome Crisis
Lee Pil-Ryul
Chairman of Center for Energy Alternative, Professor of Scientific History at Korean National Open University
*This article was printed in The Quarterly Changbi (Spring 2005) and translated by Korea Foundation later (see the webzine of Korea Foundation, KOREA FOCUS [http://www.koreafocus.or.kr/essays.asp?vol=&no=1114§ion=4&key=lee%20pil] ). ⓒ Lee Pil-Ryul 2005
Recently, I carefully reread the inaugural address that President Roh Moo-hyun delivered two years ago at his inauguration ceremony. The disappointment that I remembered feeling, as my initial reaction to this inauguration speech, seemed to now be intensified. My desire to reread the text of this speech was spurred on by the current nationwide disregard for our environment, which in turn led me to recall that President Roh had not mentioned a single word about environmental issues during his inaugural address. My memory was correct. The speech was filled with words that seemed to be associated with a pledge to focus all his efforts on economic growth.
The word "sustainable," which is frequently referred to in discourses on ecological matters, was mentioned once in the speech, but only to modify the following word "economic growth." Nobody else may have paid much attention, but I think that the most telling aspect of the inaugural address was the mention of "sustainable economic growth." This term summarizes the Roh Moo-hyun government's amateurish approach to economic development. Did President Roh expect that the insertion of "sustainable" somewhere, without carefully distinguishing its proper placement, would somehow soothe public concerns about environmental problems?
At that time, I sought to ease my disappointment with the inaugural speech by somehow blaming those involved with the environmental movement. I seemed to think that President Roh, who was elected by a people with high expectations for his reform initiatives, did not mention a single word about the environment because this meant that there was something wrong with the environmental movement, which had already been well established for over a decade. If the environmental movement, instead of focusing so intently on the struggle to resolve urgent regional environmental issues, had also made more efforts to introduce environmental matters into the mainstream of public discourse, the environment might not have been so utterly disregarded during the inaugural ceremony.
Nowadays, politics in Korea are swayed by the whims of the electorate. As such, if even a small number of people push hard for a meaningful shift in policy based on environmental concerns, the political circles would have to take heed and respond accordingly. Therefore, the Roh Moo-hyun administration's over-emphasis on economic affairs and neglect of environmental issues is a reflection of the Korean people's mindset. Residents would like the environment in their region to be protected to some degree; however, they more highly value national development and continuous economic growth. In fact, most people still cling to a notion that growth is the answer to all our problems. In this regard, the usage of "sustainable economic growth" not only reinforces this growth notion, but also helps the public to maintain a false sense of assurance that something is being done about protecting the environment.
Meanwhile, this fundamental situation has not been improved over the last two years. The Roh administration has not offered any compromise measures in regard to the development of nuclear waste disposal facilities, the Saemangeum reclamation project, or the construction of tunnels at Mt. Cheonseong and Mt. Sapae. Environmental organizations, which have focused their efforts on protesting such projects as these, have gradually come to be ignored by the public as well as the government. The government and these environmental organizations now find themselves at loggerheads over a number of environmental issues. And all this while, the government has refused to budge a single centimeter until a Buddhist nun's hunger strike, to protest the construction of a tunnel at Mt. Cheonseong, reached a life-threatening stage, while on the other hand, the environmental organizations have declared the present state as an environmental emergency.
'Environmental Emergency'
After having declared the existence of an environmental emergency in Korea, environmental organizations are now waging an all-out struggle against the government. About 100 environmental organizations across the nation have joined forces in an Environmental Emergency Commission. However, public opinion hardly seems favorable to these environmental organizations and their cause. In fact, the public paid scant attention when these environmental organizations traveled across the country to hold rallies, during which prominent environmental activists sought to publicize the dire state of Korea's environment.
Additional efforts to heighten public awareness included the staging of extended sit-in demonstrations by environmental activists and lengthy hunger strikes by commission representatives. A national pro-environment rally organized by the Environmental Emergency Commission, during which an environmental emergency was declared and government policy denounced, was attended by only a few hundred people and failed to attract public attention. The activities of the Green Action Corps, which conducted a one-month tour of the country in early January to condemn instances of environmental degradation, did not seem to elicit much sympathy or interest among the people either.
The incumbent government's adoption of an anti-environment policy had been anticipated from the time when President Roh first took office. Therefore, exactly what have those involved in the environmental movement been doing for the last two years, and why are they only now saying that we are facing a crisis situation? Moreover, why have they failed to garner the public's support despite their staging of sit-in demonstrations, hunger strikes, and two-month-long rallies throughout the country?
In reviewing what environmental organizations have been doing in the name of the current "environmental emergency," I can only reflect upon the fact that, as one journalist has so aptly observed, the current situation is evidence of not only a crisis of our environment, but also of a crisis within the environmental movement itself. Only recently, environmental activists have come to realize that the environmental movement itself is experiencing a crisis; however, the movement has exhibited crisis-like symptoms for at least the past two years. This crisis has finally been acknowledged in the form of the Environmental Emergency Commission, which was launched last year to address the so-called "environmental crisis."
The Roh Moo-hyun administration assumed office with two environment-related priorities on its plate: one, development of the nuclear waste facilities, as announced by the Kim Dae-jung administration at the end of its term, and two, the Saemangeum reclamation project, a constant source of controversy throughout President Kim's tenure. Although these projects were not initiated by the incumbent government, they did represent significant issues that the Roh administration could not afford to abandon, even in the face of staunch resistance from environmental organizations. Consequently, the clash between the government and the environmental movement intensified, along with the gap between the two sides becoming wider than ever.
It is noteworthy to point out that while the government was unable to proceed with these two projects because of resistance from local residents and environmental organizations, the environmental movement was not able to capitalize on this situation. Although tangible results were achieved, including cancellation of the planned construction of a nuclear waste facilities project in Buan and temporary postponement of the Saemangeum reclamation project, the residents of Buan and ordinary citizens attributed these outcomes to the efforts of religious figures, such as the Catholic priest Mun Kyu-hyun and Won-Buddhist monk Kim In-kyung. Conversely, local residents did not highly regard environmental organizations. As for these two projects, the Korean Federation for the Environmental Movement put forth the most active efforts. Of note, although the protest campaign against the construction of nuclear waste disposal facilities in Buan attracted nationwide attention, the number of members of the Korean Federation for the Environmental Movement(KFEM) actually decreased from 8,000 to 7,000 in 2004 (The Hankyoreh, December 12, 2004).
Crisis of the Environmental Movement
Why were environmental organizations, despite their fervid activism related to these high-profile projects during last two years, unable to garner public support, while even experiencing a decline in membership in 2004? The downward trend in the number of members is often attributed to the ongoing economic slump. Further compounding this situation is a lack of effort to encourage more active citizen participation. Moreover, the direction and methods employed by the environmental movement are criticized for lacking a "vision and commitment to change the world" (Cho Hong-seop, "Crisis of the Environment, Crisis of the Environmental Movement," The Hankyoreh, December 6, 2004). I believe that this decrease in membership is a clear indication of a crisis within the environmental movement. As such, attributing the dwindling of membership primarily to the sluggish economy seems to be based on a superficial analysis. Environmental organizations often link a decline in membership to financial difficulty, which reveals that members are regarded less as participants than a source of much-needed revenue to fund the activities and operations of the organizations.
Changes in the number of "legitimate" members, who pay membership fees, are an important indicator of the strength, viability, and potential of an environmental organization, whether it seeks to function as a grassroots network or a lobbying group. Any organization that denies this reality will eventually lose its identity as a civic group. Even without the receipt of membership fees, organizations are able to secure funding from such sources as contributions from for-profit enterprises, sponsorship arrangements with businesses, and government-related contracts. Furthermore, such organizations are free to engage in lobbying and campaigning activities. Of course, once an organization decides to go down this path, the number of members becomes increasingly less important, along with the related membership fees being only a secondary consideration. On the other hand, support from businesses or the government has become an important funding source for an organization's core activities. If this situation is allowed to continue, ever more professional and staff activists working for such organizations will come to think more and more that the leaders of these groups are themselves rather than participating as environmental activists.
No environmental organization in Korea rejects the significance of its membership, as a vast majority emphasizes the critical need to maintain a close bond with their members. However, these organizations give little consideration to their members and membership fees when planning their primary activities, and there are only few cases in which membership fees account for more than one-half of an organization's total operating budget. Rather, the lion's share of funding for their operating costs comes in the form of contributions from business enterprises or project contracts from the government or public foundations.
Naturally, there is a ready-made excuse for this situation: the available funding is inadequate to support the ever-increasing scope of activities of environmental organizations. If the scope of activities is expanded, the number of staff activists will have to be increased as well, along with administrative personnel and operating expenses. And if these costs cannot be covered by the membership fees, then organizations are compelled to look for external assistance, such as contributions from business firms. However, these organizations cannot be assured of receiving steady financial support from private enterprises on a continuous basis. In particular, corporate donors will typically determine what amount of support would be sufficient to advance their own interests, while the approval of such contributions and specific amounts are often influenced by personal relationships.
Under these circumstances, organizations can increase the number of staff activists when they receive large contributions, but may be strapped for funds for paying their staff when such assistance decreases. Can staff activists be expected to carry out their activities in a professional manner when they are not paid on a timely basis, and their compensation is rather minimal to begin with? Indeed, a considerable number of staff activists with the larger environmental organizations in Korea are forced to endure low pay, high stress due to the frequent protests that they must participate in, and the lack of a clear vision on the part of their organization. According to medical examinations conducted at the Green Hospital in the fall of 2004, the health of environmental activists was said to be seven times worse than that of regular office workers ("Red Light for Civic Activists," The NGO Times, September 15, 2004).
Although Korea's environmental activists are known to be working under such difficult circumstances, they have been successful in gaining easier access to the corridors of power. The dialogue and cooperation between environmental organizations and the government, which began during the Kim Dae-jung administration, has become more active since the inauguration of the incumbent administration. Official and unofficial contacts were taking place even when the fierce struggle against the construction of a nuclear waste facilities project in Buan seemed to be on the verge of raging out control, causing some government officials to suggest that martial law would be needed to maintain order.
The fruit of these contacts, and also the symbol of underlying problems, was manifested in the Citizen-Government Joint Forum on Energy Policy, which was established as a result of an agreement between environmental organizations and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy in April 2004. During a preparatory meeting, the ministry proposed that this forum be responsible for reviewing the government's overall energy policy, including its policy for nuclear waste disposal facilities, and, if necessary, to form a task force team to devise energy policy. Most environmental organizations supported acceptance of the ministry's proposal, which led to the launch of a supposedly landmark "governance" body. But just two months later, the forum ran aground without any fruitful results when all ten civic organizations announced their withdrawal.
The environmental organizations seemed to have had high hopes for the Citizen-Government Joint Forum on Energy Policy. As indicated in a statement released by the Anti-Nuke Citizens Action Network, which stated that efforts had been made to promote energy policy governance by creating a social consensus and properly planning and implementing energy policy in conjunction with the government through dialogue and cooperation on energy issues, environmental organizations made known their desire to be directly involved in energy policy. However, the attempt to promote such cooperative governance between the government and environmental organizations ended in failure after just two months due to a falling-out of the two sides. The environmental organizations blamed the government for this breakdown, in claiming that the Roh administration had violated the initial agreement by not canceling the scheduled construction of a nuclear waste disposal project, in addition to rejecting a proposal from environmental organizations to set up the agreed-upon task force.
Whatever the case, the agreement reached for the establishment of this forum should have been cause for concern for anyone even the least bit interested about the direction of the environmental movement. It remains highly questionable that these environmental organizations, which while working for the public's interests are after all voluntary groups, should be allowed to participate in a joint policymaking team with the government that has been duly empowered by the electorate and is thus responsible for the administration of state affairs. However, these environmental organizations continue to proudly claim that they attempted to form such a cooperative team in order to implement an effective energy policy. As a result, environmental organizations may now believe that direct involvement in government policy is an integral component of the environmental movement.
Previously, the primary objective of environmental organizations was focused on rallying opposition to government activities; however, during the Kim Dae-jung administration they came to play somewhat more of an advisory role. But under the current government, environmental organizations seem to be occupied by a notion that they should now move beyond such an advisory role and fully participate in the actual governance process. What's next? The ultimate direction of the environmental movement has never been more muddled and unclear.
Failure of Public-Government Forum
The establishment of a joint policy planning team by the government and environmental organizations can be evaluated as an advanced step not often seen in other countries. However, the fact that it was quickly dissolved, regardless of which party was responsible for the breakup, reveals that both the government and environmental organizations had a serious disparity in their perceptions of the environmental movement. As such, this task force formation indicated that the government sees environmental organizations as a partner in the policymaking process, while environmental organizations believe it as only natural that they be directly involved in the making of government policy. Such perceptions were a primary factor behind the agreement to form this joint policymaking team. However, it was a divergence of perceptions that subsequently led to the demise of this advanced initiative.
Participation in such a body represented a significant departure from the original principles of the environmental movement, and was destined to be the subject of serious controversy in regard to such issues as due representation and validity. Similar disputes can arise when environmental organizations are allowed to participate in government committees as well. Of course, since most government committees play an advisory role, environmental organizations could use these forums to make known their concerns and opinions. However, even such instances can result in controversy when carefully scrutinized, and potentially lead to environmental organizations being used as a government adjunct.
The formation and then quick dissolution of the Citizen-Government Joint Forum on Energy Policy was little known by the public. Not much discussion occurred even among environmental organizations, which simply thought that another dialogue channel with the government had been launched and then canceled when it was found to be nonfunctional. However, the government and observers who are well aware of the situation have questioned the credibility of the subject environmental organizations. The government halfheartedly threw environmental organizations a bone by forming a forum that it planned to use as a means to resolve the problem of securing sites for nuclear waste facilities and to facilitate discussion about energy policy, including nuclear energy issues.
The environmental organizations latched on to this bone without so much of a second thought, only to spit it out when it was found not to suit their taste. If in fact the environmental organizations behaved in this manner, then how can they be trusted? This kind of outcome might have been inevitable from the outset. And in this case, the proper choice would have been not to accept the government's proposal in the first place. Environmental organizations will end up the losers if they seek to align themselves with the government even when offered a less than forthright proposal. It thus should be remembered that the government exercises power that has been entrusted to it by the public, while environmental organizations are voluntary groups that have to continuously prove their worth to maintain their credibility.
The Environmental Emergency Commission can be seen as an attempt by the environmental movement to publicize its opposition to the current government's efforts to proceed with large-scale projects that have the potential to cause massive environmental destruction. It can also be interpreted as a desperate attempt to overcome the crisis that has engulfed the environmental movement, due to its lack of foresight and a subsequent loss of public confidence. However, it is questionable whether the Environmental Emergency Commission did in fact come about as a result of any concerted effort to address such matters.
To appeal to the people, reinforce member support, and regain public trust, the environmental movement should have prepared more thoroughly by conducting in-depth discussion before taking any definitive action. The movement can hardly hope to appeal to its members and the general public if the declaration of an "emergency," followed by sit-down demonstrations and a hunger strike by their "representatives," are perceived as for-show events staged without adequate preparation. When one such "representative" hunger-strike participant ends up being appointed presidential secretary for environmental affairs, the legitimacy of such hunger strike and sit-in demonstration events begins to pale, while themes such as "Into the Public, Together with the Public" are dismissed as merely empty slogans. In the end, any sit-in demonstration or hunger strike in the name of an "emergency" runs the risk of being seen as just another publicity stunt. Therefore, it is doubtful that even those environmental activists involved with the Environmental Emergency Commission regard the public as stakeholders of environmental organizations or sources of support for the movement.
The larger and older an environmental organization becomes, the more likely it is that its activists will fail to recognize its members as being stakeholders of the organization. There may be member representatives, executive committees, and meetings of representatives, but important decisions are for the most part made by a secretary-general or core staff activists. Moreover, the sharp decline in the number of their members is not thought to be a serious problem. When the number of members, and the related membership fees, begin to trend downward, organizations should candidly reflect on their practices and adopt bold reform measures to rectify any shortcomings. Such a reform process cannot be effective when activists think of themselves as the exclusive owners of these organizations. As such, self-reflection and restructuring of the environmental movement will be necessary in order to overcome the crises of our environment and the environmental movement. Such a restructuring can only be successful when members are regarded as stakeholders and the general public as a legitimate partner.
Restoration of Public Trust
Members of environmental organizations and the general public are not as passive as they might seem to be. It is true that many are casual onlookers, but a considerable number are concerned observers and active participants. Based on my more than four years of experience as part of the environmental movement, I can safely say that concerned members of the general public as well as those of environmental organizations always keep a close eye on matters that affect our environment. They become active members when, after personal observation, they come to share the views of the movement and desire to lend support through membership fees. They do not simply become members all of a sudden. When such members come to more strongly embrace the activities of a particular organization, they begin to directly participate in its activities and become staunch supporters. If these organizations believe that the right direction for the movement is to be member-oriented and "one with the public," then they should always consider the interests of their members and the general public.
Above all, members and the general public earnestly desire that environmental organizations be of unquestionable integrity. They do not like to see the provision of any form of funding or assistance by the business sector or government. Of course, they strive to understand the inevitable reality since membership fees alone cannot support the operating costs these organizations incur to carry out the multitude of tasks in need of attention. However, they still think of this as a less than ideal situation. As for their relations with the government, the public would prefer for these organizations to maintain their independence. Also, they do not find it desirable for those involved in the civic movement to directly influence the policymaking process, or to accept political appointments.
Members and the general public, as active observers, would like environmental organizations to uphold their principles to the maximum extent possible. Indeed, it is most confusing to the public when these organizations appear to be working cooperatively with the government on a particular matter, and then they suddenly turn around and launch a protest campaign. They want to see environmental organizations push forward with their own vision and objectives without being swayed by outside influences.
Environmental activists may not be highly paid but they are in an advantageous position in terms of their access to government officials. Manager-level activists within environmental organizations can often discuss matters with director general-level government officials on an equal footing, while at times director-level activists will be able to meet with ministers. On the other hand, the directors of private businesses or public corporations have to deal mainly with director-level or program officers. The reality is, that while the directors of public corporations can have a hard time meeting with even program officers, environmental activists can readily gain access to senior-ranking officials. This is because they pursue public, as opposed to private, interests and are supported by environmental organizations and the general public, although this is not always apparent on the surface.
Although those actively involved in the environmental movement should always be mindful of this situation, they often seem to not do so in reality. They seem to think of themselves as being the core of the movement, which leads them to believe they are entitled to negotiate and set up joint bodies with the government, and even exert influence on the policymaking process. Of course, discussions and negotiations with the government are necessary to make known their concerns and opinions. However, such efforts must be undertaken within reasonable principles and parameters. Moreover, in order to maintain their credibility and attract new members without causing confusion, the decisions reached by these organizations, after extensive discussion, should not be altered without proper justification.
Such expectations to uphold their principles should not be taken to mean that members and the public insist on the adoption of a confrontational approach or all-out struggle at all times. While reform and change are desired, they do not believe that genuine reform can be realized through extreme measures or fierce struggle. At this time when considerable democratization has been attained, people yearn for reform brought about through an expansion of constructive discussion and thoughtful consideration of policy alternatives. Fierce struggles seem more suited for countries with a lower level of democratization. Members and the public are not only quick to criticize governmental abuse of power, they also frown upon the extreme actions taken by environmental organizations.
An enlightened public tends to shun endless and hollow calls for reform, while eagerly awaiting meaningful reform, on the part of the government as well as environmental organizations. For this reason, quite a number of people, although sympathetic to her cause, did not endorse the Buddhist nun Jiyul's launch of a hunger strike to protest the construction of a high-speed railway tunnel through Mt. Cheonseong. They prefer a problem like this to be resolved not through an extreme method like fasting, but rather constructive and frank discussion. As such, they would favor wide-ranging discussion of the proposed tunnel's impact on Mt. Cheonseong, problems related to possible alternatives, and issues linked to the high-speed railway project and transportation policy.
It is said that such discussions do not generate media attention, and thus fail to arouse interest among the general public. However, this does not mean that the environmental movement should continue to rely on sit-in demonstrations and hunger strikes. Of course, high-profile opposition is needed when the government chooses to ignore resident concerns and recklessly pushes through with its plans, as was the case in Buan. Nationwide support was readily evident when local resistance peaked in Buan. However, it must be remembered that the most critical factor behind the ability of the protest efforts in Buan to attract nationwide interest and support was the fact that the residents challenged the government's nuclear energy policy. In doing so, the public came to see that this opposition was not simply another NIMBY situation.
Moreover, the daily candlelight vigils over a period of seven months gained the public's sympathy. Discussions conducted in an orderly manner may not be of much interest to the media initially. However, the continuation of such dialogue in a productive and earnest manner will gradually attract attention to the subject issue. As more people develop an interest and the public becomes better informed, the number of members in environmental organizations will increase as well. Moreover, change sometime begins with small steps that can build momentum and lead to reform. The environmental movement should thus be guided by the following theme: the pursuit of an alternative form of movement, which is based on truthfulness and integrity, to help build a foundation for the eventual adoption of meaningful change. [The Quarterly Changbi, Spring 2005]