Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

LOCAL AGENDA 21 IN MALAYSIA: ISSUES AND PROBLEM FACED BY THE STAKEHOLDER IN THE PARTICIPATION PROCESS Mariana Mohamed Osman, Syarifah Norazizan Syed A Rashid, Nobaya Ahmad University Putra Malaysia, Department of Human Ecology, anasoman2003@yahoo.com.sg

ABSTRACT This paper examines the way in which the participatory principles of LA21 are being carried out in Malaysia, using Petaling Jaya as a case study. The investigation includes an examination of the problems faced by the stakeholder in the participation process of LA21 and the reasons for the low level of adoption of LA21 by local authorities in Malaysia The research questioned whether LA21 is likely to lead to real change or whether it is a peripheral and just creating pretence of locally sustainable development. Its particular emphasis is on attempts to involve stakeholder in consensual strategies, and to draw out the strengths and weaknesses of the LA21 process. In the case study of Petaling Jaya, the local authority try to emphasise a listening and open approach to decision-making process, but despite their commitment to participation there has been limited success in securing widespread involvement and trust of people into the process. Key issues to emerge are the importance of the commitment of key individual and politicians, the readiness of the authorities to the outcomes of the participatory methods (responsive, transparent and consensus decision) and the need for participation to be an ongoing commitment by the authorities themselves rather than just one off exercise. The implications are that change is needed in the way local authorities relate to the communities they serve, but this will place considerable demand on already stretched local authority resource, particularly where positive action is needed to build capacity. Keywords: Local Agenda 21; participation; stakeholders; Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; Sustainable development INTRODUCTION As the urban challenge is global and the goal of creating sustainable settlement is essential everywhere in the world, the issues such as equality, participation and sustainability have become critical in decision making of the physical development. Since Earth Summit in 1992, national governments have started to realize that the participation of local authorities is critical to the solution of global environmental problems. Agenda 21 in chapter 28 acknowledged that the key players in the implementation of sustainable development concept are the local authority. Whilst clearly perceiving a global scale for environmental problems, Agenda 21 re-conceptualized the scale of solutions for problems to the local level. In this sense, Agenda 21 recognizes that local environmental problems affect people in a direct fashion. With the ratification of Agenda 21, it is now recognized both nationally and internationally, that a focus on individuals within the community, and specifically, within the realm of local government is a desirable location for sustainable development initiatives to occur [1]. This is so, since local government helps to shape the lives of communities at local and state levels and they have the potential to act as agents of change for environmental management [2][3]. Agenda 21 proposed that local government should play a central role in implementing sustainable development via the development of individual local agenda 21 (LA21) programs for local areas [4]. LA21 is part of Agenda 21 document, which stresses on the preparation of action plans or programmes to address complex local problems existing mostly in urbanised area. It presents a framework for local authorities to plan together with the residents and local organisation in the design and provision of services to the community [2]. It provides an avenue for all local stakeholders to talk, discuss and agree
1

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

on how their action can make their local environment be more sustainable [5]. Indirectly the process provide an opportunity to break down mistrust between different stakeholders by encouraging participation and focused on improving local democracy [6][7]. Public sector organizations are increasingly providing opportunities for citizens and stakeholders to be involved in issue analysis, planning and decision-making. This was due to law or policy (e.g. consultation with public in environmental impact assessment, and local and state structure plan) and also to meet the requirements of a national or international certification process or simply to make an effective decision on a complex issue [8]. All community organisation, women's groups and non-governmental organisations are important sources of information, and action at the local level must have strong awareness, interest and participation by local community for community-driven approach to be a success. [9]

However studies done by Miltin and Satterthwaite et. al (2004:134) [10] found that most failure in projects initiated by government either it at the federal or local government are linked to their limited capacities or disinterest to meet the objectives. According to these writers, some of the reasons for the failures are: Unwillingness to act appropriately (for political reasons or for lack of profit, no democratic pressures, no accountability to population, no developmental state, national or state government allocating city or municipal or district governments responsibility without necessary powers, and resources). Inability to act (weak, lack of funding and professional competence, hampered by inappropriate legal, regulatory and financial framework) Inefficiency (poor or weak infrastructure and service provision) Official standards are unrealistic based on level of investment, funding and other resources. (staffs and capacity building) According to Elias (2000) [11] awareness among the participations in LA21 were low not only among the general public, but also among officials in government. The author found in certain countries in transition (former Soviet Union countries and the Balkan countries), the government officer at the national and local level did take little consideration of Agenda 21 and the principles of sustainable development in approving their physical development. At the same time, a lack of information and knowledge is visible at the next stage especially at the sub-regional and local government level. Problem faced by an NGO (center for Environment and Sustainable Development) from Russia shows that awareness by both the public and government official of sustainable development is extremely low [11]. Responsible authority and officers at national and state level who prepare the LA21 often have no clear picture on how to invite major groups to make representation. Furthermore, bureaucratic tendencies, lack of knowledge, training and responsibilities and the task of undertaking public participation can be a complicated and expensive exercise for authorities. [6][7]. These clearly hampered the implementation of LA21 Action plans at these countries. Despite all the excitement, the international commitment to sustainability proved less substantial than may have appeared possible after the outcome of Rio [8]. Local authorities were not given any resources to implement LA21, which until today remains a non-statutory process for the local authorities to undertake. It was still left as a voluntary exercise to most local authorities in the world for example in the UK, Australia, Thailand and Malaysia [5][12][13][14]. In the UK, for example, some of its national policies on built environment (transport, energy consumption) were often contradictory to the aims of the LA21 process [15][14]. In terms of local level, issues related to power struggle and consensus decision tend to be the main obstacles to the LA21 process. Local authority officers have often found difficulty to engage and discuss with the local population. The officers still prefer to be the authority in decision making and planners are just technical experts giving professional inputs rather than planning for sustainable community [9][5]. The issues of local authority lack of resources in term of financial and
2

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

staffing capability tend to spoil and lead to low performance of authority officers in the LA21 exercise. Some of the stages in the LA21 process especially related to the community visioning and formulation of programmes by stakeholder were disrupted by the officer actions by pointing out issues related to limited budget or their limited ability to influence developers on what to do [16]. Furthermore, the participation tools used failed to attract ordinary citizens apart from the regular council participants and the already articulate middle classes [15]. According to Parker and Selman, (1997),[17] there is evidence to suggest that even LA21 programmes in the UK have struggled to recruit deprived and excluded communities, black and minority ethnic groups and younger and older sections of the population. This has led to a perception that LA21 is largely a white, middle-class agenda and has little to offer disadvantaged and marginalised communities. LOCAL AGENDA 21: MALAYSIAS EXPERIENCE The implementation of LA21 in Malaysia started in January 2000 under the pilot project LA21 that involved four local authorities namely Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MPPJ) , Miri Municipal council, Kuantan Municipal council and Kerian District council. The introduction of LA21 projects within the local council agenda in Malaysia has become increasingly important due to unsustainable activity and increase demand by the local community to participate in the local decision making process [14]. The pilot project was initiated by the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) and headed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (MHLG) together with the Economic Planning Unit from the Ministry of Prime Minister [14]. UNDP as the main sponsor of the LA21 pilot projects had employed six consultants to be assigned at the MHLG and 4 pilot local authorities. The consultants were employed to help with the coordination and facilitation works of LA21. They acted as the representatives of the MHLG and UNDP, which helped the councils staffs with the setting up of the LA21. The implementation of the pilot project was completed in the year 2002 with all four authorities completed the LA21 action plan. In the year 2002, the LA21 programme was broaden into second phase, which involved 46 City and Municipal councils and one district council . The involvement of UNDP and consultants ended in February 2002 and the LA21 programme was implemented fully under the MHLG with financial assistance from the 8th Malaysian Plan (2000-2005). A budget of RM1.8 millions for 3 years period was allocated for the implementation of LA21. At the end of 2005, all local authorities in Malaysia were invited to prepare the LA21 Action Plan. Within January 2002 to December 2006, only 29% (16) of local authorities were at various stages of the implementation process of LA21 action plan, while the balance of 38 local authorities (71%) in Malaysia still remain uncommitted (MHLG, Personal Communication, Feb 2007). This rate (29%) could be considered low because the federal government allocated financial assistance through 8th and 9th Malaysia Plan for these local authorities to implement LA21. Until presently there has not been any national implementation of LA21 activities to date. Only a small number of local governments are undertaking LA21 processes or other sustainable activities such as gaining ISO 9001 certification (an international standard for administrative structures and capabilities), and other capacity building processes. There are also a number of related projects in Malaysia that are consistent with sustainable development principles, such as the Urban Governance initiative, Healthy Cities Projects, Safe Cities Initiative ,Sustainable Penang Initiative and the Selangor State Sustainable Development Strategy [18]. In Malaysia, although the role of local authorities is wide, being non-elected agency, the authorities are considered as not democratically accountable. While the government views LA21 as an avenue for community participation, it must be acknowledged that the participation in Malaysia is limited to the confines of a local government system that is not fully representative, and therefore not fully transparent and almost not accountable to the community [18]. Certainly LA21 has opened up space for community involvement and participation and there are many ongoing initiatives in

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

partnership with local authorities and community based organisations. However newspaper reports and the situation on the ground reveal that much remains to be desired of governance at the local level. Local authorities have immense responsibility in the use and management of urban natural resources which are directly related to sustainable development [18]. Whilst these initiatives are gaining momentum, financial restraints and lack of skilled personnel are being encountered at the district and local levels. The need for governance processes to engage stakeholder although not through elected process would be able to create wide public support, trust and credibility. According to Phang (1998)[19], surveys have indicated that the public tends to give greater credence to information provided by organizations like Greenpeace and Amnesty International than media or official sources. These results tend to reinforce the LA21 process approach for at least two reasons. First, as noted above, to ensure that groups which have good information and creative ideas about how to move ahead are brought to the table in a framework that is outcome-driven. Second, to give those sectors namely the public sector, which suffer (rightly or wrongly) from a lower public opinion an opportunity to define, defend and develop their perspectives in a policy forum where they can engage directly and methodically on areas of difference. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Throughout the research, information was gathered through desk analysis of documentation and survey results; identification of key network members; interviews with network members; attending meetings and seminars and wider networking. For the first sets of data-information, library research and document analysis related to the principles of local agenda 21 and its practices had been conducted. Minute meetings and documents produced either by the local authorities and Ministry were also analysed. The second step of gathering data was using the questionnaires. Postal questionnaire survey was distributed to a sample of 48 local authorities in Malaysia. For the case study of Petaling Jaya, interview method was used where stakeholders who were directly involved in the LA21 process were interviewed. Last but not least, observational techniques were also applied during the data analysis. In this respect, through close observation of individuals in their setting, the researcher could generate data, which might support, contradict or substitute any oral records. Thus, in this research, the writer had attended several meetings of the main committee and working groups of the MPPJ LA21, four seminars organised by the council in relation to public participation and also a month attachment with LA21 unit in the MPPJ. (July 2006 August 2006). The attachment to MPPJ was conducted to enable the researcher to understand the operational activities of the Unit. Furthermore, the attachment helped the researcher to understand the issues or difficulties faced by the council in implementing LA21. Detailed interviews with councils staffs and community representatives in Petaling Jaya who were involved in the LA21 process were conducted during this period of attachment. Analysis of research results would obviously, be on-going during the course of the research but the final stage will bring together the various elements of the study including the conclusions to be drawn and recommendations to be made. As such, that is the overall research process and methods undertaken. In term of the case study, Petaling Jaya is located in the Central West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia and has a total area of 97.2 squares kilometres. The total population was approximately 486, 040 (MPPJ, 2005) and the composition of racial were Malay: 145,820 (30%); Chinese: 267,320 (55%); Indian :63,180 (13%) Others: 9,720 (2%). In term of land use pattern, the largest land use are housing: 52.06 % followed by industry: 14.30 %; Commerce: 6.38 %; Public Facilities: 4.51 %; Open Space/Recreation: 8.85 % ;Institution: 0.30% ; Infrastructure: 9.15% And Others : 4.45 % (MPPJ, 2005). The population growth rate is about 4.24% annually and represents the richest locality in Malaysia in terms of per capita income [20]. Petaling Jaya was the first new town in Malaysia, which was developed in 1952, during the British colonial times. It was developed to relieve the pressure of population in Kuala Lumpur, and at the same time provide homes and job opportunities for residents of the new town. The town was considered as an alternative settlement for squatters who were displaced from the fringes of Kuala Lumpur Municipality that was required for government projects [20]. Generally, the administration of MPPJ is governed by the

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

Local Government Act 1976 (Act 171). It specifies the role and duties, authorities, function and modusoperandi of MPPJ. In short, it empowers MPPJ with the role as a service provider, tax collector, regulator, enforcers and growth facilitator. In terms of sustainability initiatives, based on the research it was found that PJ was considered to be the forefront leader of LA21 since the selection as one of the pilot project in 2000. As compared to the other pilot projects (Miri Municipal Council, Kerian Dirstrct council and Kuantan Municipal council), Petaling Jaya would respresent a complex local authority with city status due to the high number of population and diverse ethnic composition. The area is also an urban area with a high density population and located within Selangor , the first developed state in Malaysia. Undoubtedly, support and commitment by senior officer in the council has been an important factor in the development of the local authoritys stance on sustainability and environmental issues. LA21 unit was setup within the development control department to help coordinate the environmental activities and policies of MPPJ in partnership with local businesses and community groups. METHODS OF PARTICIPATION IN LA21 One of the most important factors influencing the public to participate in sustainability activities is the availability of various avenues or channels for them to be involve and meet with the authority or decision maker. In Malaysia, the methods of public participation in LA21 varied and may range from public workshops (PJ LA21), public meeting, focus groups, public exhibition of the LA21 action plan, inviting feedback through letters and web portals such as Petaling Jaya LA21 website and formal public consultations such as public forums, public debates and seminars. In the Petaling Jaya LA21, a two day workshops was held and 150 invited participants identified 3 areas of concern namely safety, social integration and environment. Following the workshop, an LA21 seminar was held to inform the participants and community at large about the concluding remarks of the previous workshops. Several working committees are formed consists of experts, NGOs, business owners, community representatives, and council staffs, to tackle the issues identified (safety, social integration and environment). In the context of Malaysia LA21, even though open public participation is an ideal method of participation however limited capacity in term of finance and staffing make it the used of working committee or focus group is almost ideal tool where focus groups which consist of local people or stakeholder are set up to tackle specific issues and oriented to problem solution. The additional LA21 seminar or public forum helped to include politically unorganized individuals or ordinary citizens into the process. Before the findings of the working committees were finalized into the LA21 action plan, a public seminar and public exhibition was organized for the general public to preview the draft proposal. The seminar was an important stage whereby the proposals by the working committees were put to test by ordinary citizens as the accuracy of their interpretation of the local problems and the proposed approaches to resolve such problems. In the case study it was found that most of participants were representatives of an organization (government, NGOs, private sector or community) and invited to attend the workshops and seminar. Given the diversity of approaches adopted in LA21, it is not surprising that participation occurred at several levels. The number of awareness raising programme were largely informing exercise, although in some instances, such as the petty crime prevention and domestic waste management in SS2 and SS1 areas, awareness-raising such as demonstration and briefing sessions on recycling programme was a precursor to more practical involvement. Furthermore, it was noted that administration and financial support decision were fully decided by the council management themselves rather than decided by the working committee. Who are the stakeholders?

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

In participation process, the question of who participates or the stakeholders is essential because it has implications on the effectiveness of challenging power or knowledge relationships in the participation of LA21 process. Selman (1996) [9] classified participants by reference to the characteristics and motivations of participants whether they volunteered to attend, invited, appointed, encouraged or coerced into participation. Their participation would affect the perceived legitimacy of contributions toward decision. According to Soh and Yuen (2005) individuals and groups may participate for various reasons such as to develop skills, gain experience, to influence decision making process and to empower themselves. Other factors that influence participations are access to funding, level of publicity, skills and knowledge of the subject matters and ability to present case. In the LA21 in Malaysia, the stakeholder are the public sector namely local authorities, state government, federal government and other statutory bodies such as Alam Flora (company responsible for rubbish collection and cleaning of area), TNB (Electricity Board), TM (Telecom Malaysia) and water board; private sector (business owner, factories owners and their associations); Community (the general public, CBO and community leaders) and Non governmental agencies (NGO). Hendriks (2002) study differentiate between individuals and interest groups roles where the latter refer to as stakeholder groups, pressure groups, lobby groups, representatives organization is to identify important public issues, provide information to ordinary public and to legitimize the planning process and outcome. Hendriks (2002) notes the danger of becoming too dependent on interest groups to represent public view at the expense of individual citizens and the danger of interest groups to reject or exclude ordinary public who do not share the same views. Following this line of argument, the working committee or focus group, if really consists of ordinary public and interest groups could represent the public in scrutinizing the action plan and act as a check against the power and potential dominance that the authority may have over the LA21 process. Based on the case study, most of the stakeholders involved were invited to participate in the LA21 process rather than volunteered to attend the workshop and seminar. The participants consist of government participants (36.2%), community representatives (21.6%), private sectors (18.4%) and NGO (23.8%). Only a few participants attended the workshop and seminar as a member of the public.

Issues and Problems related to participation in LA21 in Petaling Jaya A number of motivating and discouraging forces for the community participation element of the programme was revealed. The desire to improve communication between the council and communities although was apparent but hindered by the lack of trust by both parities. Awareness-raising was seen as a necessary tool to achieve public trust and acceptability of politically difficult decision. From the study several matters were identified as apparent to the success of the programme. First, it was recognized the existence of public mistrust and lack of confidence by the community to the local authority decision in development process. Public involvement and participation process was seen as tokenism or as a means of reducing this dissatisfaction and mistrust. Secondly, it was acknowledged and accepted that achieving sustainable development would involved difficult political choice and consensus decision by all stakeholder. Environmental awareness raising exercise was important to help built support for potentially unpopular decisions. Participation was seen as a tool and public involvement need to be value as an assistance to a decision making process. As commented by a respondent (UNDP3), sincerity from all parties is very importantlocal authority need to be sincere in participating in the process. LA21 is one of the stakeholder and not the decision makerthey need to be sincere in telling the public and other stakeholder about their capabilities and limitations. The local authority need to be sincere in implementing LA21 programme it is not just about doing it for the sake of doing it.

Local Authority

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

In term of the stages in the LA21 process, the study showed that the proposition of councils that had undertaken the stages in the LA21 process varies, with only some authorities at the stages of consultation with local community. Although some authorities have begun a LA21 process, there are signs that they have not integrated a full range of issues, with some council led certain initiatives or projects dominating the LA21 programme as compared to a true community based driven activities. Some council appeared to be adopting LA21 vision statements and action plan without following the six stages in the LA21 process and not involving extensive public participation process. Even though the elements of the sustainability agenda are now being promoted at national level, however this agenda is still not part of the broader reform of local governance in Malaysia. Issues related to service delivery quality and basic functions as service providers are still being questioned and criticized by the state government and public alike, and therefore issues such as encouraging developments in the integration of policy areas and development of more participative structures are being left as a least priority area. Within local authorities it appears to be a lack of interest and dedication in implementing LA21. This was due to the lacks of integration within the range of council activities, which encourages a reliance on enthusiastic individuals to take forward the sustainability agenda. This clearly needs to be addressed through federal, state governments and local authority arenas. From the study, it was found that the local authority staffs did not understand their functions in LA21 and saw themselves as public servant with limited functions, rather than as advocacy with lobbying role of sustainable development. As the resources within the council are diminishing, the council staffs need to understand that partnership with other stakeholder would help to spread the cost and responsibility to other stakeholders. The council needs to be creative in creating opportunities and giving opportunities for others to be involved in decision-making process. One of the main reasons why individual or collectively community participates in certain activities, is to be able to influence changes and future decisions. Therefore it is important for the authorities to understand and have a change in their mindset, so as to understand that participation of community is necessary in order to create transparency and avoid confrontation with the local community.

In relation to the level of knowledge and awareness of the respondents, from the analysis it was found that there was no relationship between the knowledge on LA21and the experience being involved in LA21 process. The study also found that even though the council staffs attended trainings and talks on LA21, this did not guaranteed their knowledge and understanding on the topic area. The high percentage of wrong answer given clearly showed that the respondents did not understand about LA21. This finding was consistent with a study done by B. Badriah (2006) on the awareness of Kuala Lumpur City Council officers on LA21, where the researcher found that there was no significant relationship between training received and the understanding of the officer on the LA21 concept. The findings are very worrying because based on interviews with the LA21 desk officer at MHLG and LA21 officer in Petaling Jaya and Kuantan Municipal Council, the percentage of expenditure spend for trainings and knowledge enhancement of local authorities staffs were the highest compared to other activities. According to [9] Selman (1996), interest on sustainable development principles and environment would influence the awareness and knowledge of the officer on the topic area. Overall, the analysis found that there was lack of knowledge and awareness among the respondents on the overall concepts, definition, and underlying functions of local authorities on LA21. Federal and state government play an important role in enabling LA21 and is currently viewed as not doing enough to promote local sustainable development in Malaysia. The emphasis on internal matters by council representatives and staffs brings into focus on the powerful role that key individuals play in any LA21, whether from within local authorities, businesses, community or the NGO. It therefore appears that, in the absence of a robust corporate or political culture of sustainability, or in the absence of it being

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

a statutory responsibility, a drive towards successful local sustainable development remains quite dependent on the personal commitment of enthused and dynamic individuals. Activities under the LA21 banner appeared to account for only a proportion of local initiatives that advance the sustainability agenda. Some activities promoted by the local authorities were not known under the LA21 banner but do contribute to the achievement of Agenda 21 and sustainable development. This may be leading to further confusion over the term and more denigration of its relevance, but forcing such activities into the LA21 framework would create further tensions and would be ultimately cosmetic. Community, Private Sector and NGOs Social partners were particularly unconvinced about the participatory activities promoted by local authorities, seeing them as encouraging but not yet effective. Councils were still tending to use the more conventional consultation methods (such as leaflets and public meetings) rather than embracing the innovations adopted elsewhere (such as citizen juries and planning for real). On the other hand social partners do have high expectations of consultation, and may also need to appreciate the differences between environmentalism and community development as an area of political struggle, and sustainability as a negotiated consensus. Awareness among local council staffs and their communities remains an issue of concern, particularly of the language and framework of sustainability utilized by local authorities. Work is required on language and communication in order to facilitate a fuller sharing of concepts and values. The authoritative attitude among the council staffs and their lack of confidence with their community sometimes create tension among both parties. This has lead to the lack of confidence and trust among the community and social partners with the local authorities. In terms of private sector participation, the study found that the participation by business owners and factories owners were low and they were more interested in specific issues that could effects their businesses such as supply, demand, costs, profit and productivity. Non Governmental Agencies (NGO) participation on the other hand were high and various types of NGOs participated in Petaling Jaya LA21 such as women groups, disabled group, several environmental groups, religious groups, transport associations and youth groups. However as noted by Hendriks (2002), too dependent on these interest groups could mislead the public from the important issues and these groups could be misunderstood as representing the general public due to their persistence in presenting their ideas and knowledge on particular issues. These were found in the case study area, where environmental groups tend to dominate most of the discussion and try to convince the public that environmental issues need to be given priority first as compare to social and economic issues.

SUMMARIES OF ISSUES The policy framework for LA21 and sustainable development appears to be not well developed at the state and local levels of Malaysia. Furthermore, to date this framework has not been fully successful in embedding sustainability values in local institutions and practices. An acceleration in pace is required in terms of exploiting the potential of existing structures to enhance local sustainability practices. The emphasis of good and effective local governance system through the 9th Malaysia Plan and the latest National Urbanisation policy launched in Nov 2006, could enhance the opportunities for policy development at a local level, but for reasons articulated above, should not be solely relied upon to adequately steer the transition to sustainability.

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

The phrases LA21 and local sustainable development currently have little public significance, with LA21 seen being an appropriate term for the process of promoting local sustainability by only a minority of local authorities and social partners in Malaysia. In the past, the language used by councils often tended to restrain rather than encourage public understanding, which is part of a broader immaturity in the language of sustainable development, which really just has to evolve. The lack of an alternative vocabulary means that, while some local authorities still see it as being relevant to sustainable development, social partners remain confused and skeptical. Only 24 out of 144 local authorities (16.67%) (January 2000- June 2007) in Malaysia have begun to embark LA21 process, although very few have actually started to implement LA21 action plan. Beyond this quantitative finding, it is clear that LA21 has not been very successful in raising awareness of the possibilities of local sustainable development and in stimulating debate among local authorities and community on how local areas can contribute to the overall progress of the Malaysian society. The primary concern remains on the ability to move from debate to action. A large number of authorities still do not know or have no intention of developing LA21. Based on the survey and interviews, this was due to their limited resources in term of staffing and financial capability. This was further enforced by their lack of knowledge in sustainable development and resistant toward transparency in decision making process and public participation. Although some authorities have begun LA21 process, there are signs that they have not integrated a full range of issues, with discrete council led initiatives dominating examples of practices as compared to community based driven activities. Some council also appeared to adopt LA21 vision statements and action plan without extensive participation process. Even though the elements of the sustainability are now being promoted at national level, however this agenda is still not part of the broader reform of local governance in Malaysia. Issues related to service delivery quality and basic functions as service providers are still being questioned and criticized by the federal government and public alike, and therefore issues such as reform of local governance and improvement of public participation structures are being left as a less priority area. There is a requirement for the officers to be interested and see LA21 as a way of improving councils decision-making processes. The structure of local authorities and their management style is an important factor for successful sustainable development policy. The current highly departmentalized nature of many local authorities in Malaysia does not lend itself to integrated policy delivery. LA21 should be back-up by statutory requirement using laws and legislation and directly included as part of local authority functions. This clearly needs to be addressed through federal, state governments and local authority arenas. In term of finance and staffing, policies and LA21 programmes cannot be run on thin air and to have any effect, they need at least some core funding. The bidding process can be burdensome and time-consuming, so targeting sources of funding that have the greatest relevance to local visions is important. Furthermore, fear of uncertainty amongst local government decision-makers where local governments were widely regarded to be inherently conservative institutions and appointed officials were concerned about extra financial costs associated with the implementation of LA21. There was said to be a concern amongst councillors that financial costs associated with LA21 are too high. Some of the councils were said to be reluctant to release funding for officers to initiate LA21. The process of preparing documentation for the application of funding from MHLG were said to be tedious and that the officers were also busy with other scope of works. Other non-monetary resources, such as time, skills and stamina, are often over-looked but are

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

equally important to the successful community-based policies. Professionals, volunteers and community representatives run the risk of burn-out if not properly supported. Although there is evidence that councils are now developing partnerships with a large range of social partners, it appears that these are often regarded as junior partners rather than as having a central role in LA21. Councils and social partners also seem to hold quite divergent views on a number of issues related to LA21, including its overall relevance. Trust among stakeholders need to be strengthened. At the present, councils appear to be most concerned with the internal management of the LA21 process and as a consequence do not fully appreciate the role and value of other stakeholder involvement. The communities will embrace policies and programmes that are responding to their self-identified local needs and reject those that appear to emerge from externally driven factors. Based on the study conflicting motives were identified among the stakeholder. The community felt that their local authority is not interested toward implementing a genuine participation process in their LA21 and the council staffs are not knowledgeable about LA21 and sustainable development principles. On the other hand, the authority assumed that their community was uninterested and not ready to be involved in LA21 process. The community knowledge about sustainable development was thought to be low and this meant that community groups were not putting political pressure on the local councillors and council staffs to work with sustainable development issues and promote LA21.

CONCLUSION Sustainable development and local agenda 21 is driven by a way of thinking and doing, based on social, economic and environmental principles. The local sustainability agenda centre on embedding these principles into all aspects of local government and community development. Since governance and local development are at the heart of LA21, local and state government institutions must take the lead. Not only are they the key actors in developing governance systems, but they must also recognize their position in term of resource advantage and the consequent need to ensure that communities are empowered and resourced to fully participate. As with many other developing countries, Malaysia system of highly top-down decision making system has contributed to the unfavorable environment for the improvement of public involvement in LA21 and decision making process in general. Notwithstanding, with the increase in demand for participation and transparency in decision making process, the government has introduced variety of accessible channels that the public could used to discuss with authority. While local authorities in Malaysia are beginning to bring a wide range of stakeholders on board for discussions of sustainability, it is often not on a full partnership basis, with an excessive reliance on local authority leadership. LA21 has the potential to foster enhanced civic identity and the research has found examples where this is occurring on a localised scale. However LA21 has not generally been sufficiently embedded in truly discursive participatory processes to enable the wider potential of environmental citizenship to take root in Malaysia context of cultural division, and its potential is, for the most part, underdeveloped. The call to move from Agenda 21 to more local action acknowledge the particular value of implementation in demonstrating tangible values of LA21 that will lead to increased political and public support. Moving to action also starts a process of learning-by-doing, as stakeholders begin with small experiments or gentle innovation that can develop their competence, knowledge and confidence. The opportunity to learn from the experiences of others and refocus on an accelerated transition to truly sustainable development should not be lost.

10

Ecocity World Summit 2008 Proceedings

REFERENCES [1] Zarsky, L. (1990). Sustainable Development: Challenges for Australia. Canberra: Commission for the Future. [2] International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (1997) Local Government Implementation of Local Agenda 21 ICLEI, Toranto, Canada. [3] Wright, I. (1995). Implementation of sustainable development by Australian Local Governments. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 12 (1), 5461 [4] Fowke, R., and Prasad, D. (1996). Sustainable development, cities and local government. Australian Planner, 33(2), 6166. [5] Mittler, D (1997) What, how and why? Local Agenda 21, LINK , no 76, Jan/Feb [6] Dodds. Felix, (2000), Earth Summit 2002: A New Deal, Earthscan Publication Ltd, London. [7] Mittler, D in Layard et al (2001) Planning for a Sustainable future Spon Press , Taylor and Francis group , London [8] Grubb. M, Koch.M; et al (1993), The Earth Summit Agreements: A Guide and Assessment, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Earthscan Publications Ltd. London, [9] Selman , P (1996) Local sustainability, Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places , St. Martins Press, A SAGE Publications. New York. [10] Miltin, D. and Satterthwaite, D. (eds) (2004:134) Empowering Squatter Citizen: Local Government, civil society and urban poverty reduction, London, Earthscan [11] Elias (2000:35) [12] Marshall, G. (2000). LA21: success or failure in the Western Australian context, Perth, Australia. [13]MHLG Malaysia, (2005) Progress of local agenda 21 in Malaysia [14]Hughes. Phil (2000) Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom: A review of Progress and Issues for New Zealand Reported by Phil Hughes, Office of the Parliamentary For the Environment, Supported by British Council. [15] Selman, P (1998), Local Agenda 21: Substance or Spin?; Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(5) page 533-553. [16] Selman, P and Parker J, (1997) Citizenship, civicness and social Capital of Local Agenda 21; Local Environment, Vol 2 Issue 2, Page 171-184. [17] Selman, P and Parker, J (1999) Tales of Local Sustainability; Journal of Local Environment, Febuary 1999, Vol 4 Issue 1, Page 47-61, Carfax Publishing Company [18] Goh Ban Lee (2002), Non-Compliance: A Neglected Agenda in Urban Governance Institute Sultan Iskandar of Urban Habitat and Highrise, Johor [19] Phang Sooi Nooi (1989) Local Government in Malaysia UM Publisher, Kuala Lumpur. [20] Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (2005), Local Agenda 21 Petaling Jaya, Petaling Jaya. [21] Lee Lih Shyan and Lam Kok Liang (2006) Local Agenda 21: The Role of Sustainable Communities in Planning A Developed State: Development Planning For Sustainability, Edited Hashim, H and Hashim N, Selangor [22] B. Badriah (2006) the Awareness of Kuala Lumpur City Council Officers on Local Agenda 21 unpublished Msc Thesis, UIAM, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia State International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (1996) The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning ICLEI and IDRC, Toranto, Canada. Yap, A and Chatterjee, P (2004) Cities, Citizens & Civilisations: Frequently Asked Questions on Good Urban Governance The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI), Kuala Lumpur. Hendriks C (2002) Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: roles, tension and incentives, Australian Journal of public Administration 61(1), 64-75

11