Then, came increased understanding of the effect of climate change in the context of global warming, increased intensity of windstorms, changed rainfall patterns, sea level rise and other problems.2 This latter development was the impetus that fuelled the urgency of the quest for a better functioning environmental regime. At this juncture, an idea of the paradigm of conflict, albeit not indepth that goes with environmental regulation is important.
The global community has come to realize that an environmental concern is not just about environmental degradation. The spillover effects which vary in magnitude in different locations and different times, are economic inefficiency, political instability and diminished social welfare. For regulation, however, the irony is despite the fact that the persistent cries of enthusiastic champions of environmental protection and their talk that the current approach to environmental regulation is nothing but ‘tickets to the graveyard’ rings in loud contrast to the whispers of those who see the situation differently, the whisperers still have it.
Environmental activists seek an end to rampant consumerism3 and stridently argue that business generates a range of significant environmental effects which include greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), air pollution, noise, waste, acidification of land and water, and site contamination.
This premise forms the basis of their contention that government intervention is not doing enough to strike the requisite balance between business efficiency and social efficiency. Business, on the other hand, reminds us that there is no alternative to economic globalization as the only solution to human development. Consequently, while they are not opposed to regulation of the environment, they are concerned about excessive regulation with its attendant cost implication which detracts from the net benefits potentially available to society.
On the whole, business have consistently identified unnecessary regulatory burden associated with many environmental regulations.4 Government on its own part, admits the risks but in her usual character, adamantly maintains that everything that can be done is being done, and to go any further would ultimately result in job loss and possibly a collapse of the economy.
The average citizen understands that a clean and safe environment is in her best interest: anything short of that is a risk. At the same time, the uncertainties of no work, or that of likely disruption of economic activities are too grave consequences. The citizen therefore assures himself that disease does not strike that many after all, and that however less bright the future may be in a violated environment, it is a worthwhile risk to take. With this kind of cost/benefit analysis, the majority of the citizens move on. Several others simply fall back on their religious beliefs to surmise that their lives may have been destined to be cramped and diminished. At the end of the day, only few are left to continue to grapple with how to move forward and build a more effective environmental regime.
The challenges of environmental regulation are without doubt much. For long, policy-makers, regulators, scientists and other stakeholders have tried to understand complex ecosystems and build the much needed consensus to regulate environmental risks.5
The challenges, most of which are deeply embedded in political, economic, institutional and cultural factors, range from (i) allocation of environmental responsibility to building capacity for compliance; (ii) the dynamics
