The efficacy of environmental management of any state depends quite heavily upon the extent to which the goal of environmental management gets integrated into the idea of a ‘national interest’. It is a historical reality that states so far have not recognized a higher authority than themselves. The state has an equally important role in establishing a system of global environmental management. State is the leading actor in international affairs. But the experience so far is that states have never acted as impartial or objective arbiters of international affairs. State’s actions at the international level too are guided by the concept of ‘national interest’. Thus, even during the Earth Summit when more than one hundred national leaders met to discuss the most significant issues related to world’s environment, each one of their speeches was obviously to audiences in their own countries and for their own domestic political purposes.

The goal of environmental protection, as compared to the goal of environmental management, is too tall in its aspirations. Aiming for the former goal reflects high human arrogance founded on an immense confidence that everything and anything is possible due to human capabilities. The reality however is that human capabilities are not independent of nature’s dictates. Therefore, what one can modestly aim at is a mere management of the environment to sustainably hold the human system.

The fundamental origin of environmental problems lies in the decreasing direct association of man with nature. Early man lived in close association with nature. But various processes of modernization intervened and snapped the direct association between the two. Another development in the process of modernization is—a practice developed wherein a section of people started acting on behalf of another section of people either to cater to their own interests or to serve the interests of other sections of people. Thus, grew, for example, the political systems and production systems, etc.

It is a common observation that people groups are varied in their organization, their proportion, their interests, their assumed responsibilities and their powers. But one thing common to all people groups is that each derives its sustenance and strength because it is either people-based or people-related. Yet, very frequently, these groups conflict not only with one another but also with the very people whom they are composed of, cater to, or represent. This is against the systemic approach, the basic premise of which must be cooperation and coordination but not confrontation and contradiction between the actor groups of the common system. Out of our environmental learning, a preliminary principle which ought to be understood is the need to adopt a systemic approach in conducting human affairs if one wishes to tackle environmental problems. So, environmental management in the present human system requires coordinated systemic relations between all the key actors. Apart from people in their individual capacity, States, Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Corporations, all of which are either people-based or people-related either directly or indirectly, are the key factors for environmental management. The role and responsibilities of each of them and the need to maintain systemic relationship between them is discussed below.

Law Review Journal, Environmental, Management, Human System, Who, Counts, What Matters.