Liberalising environmental governance and the hazards of democratisation

Democratising environmental governance is sometimes presented as if it would necessarily yield desirable environmental outcomes. This is in contradistinction to authoritarianism that is seen as inimical to sound biodiversity management. This paper examines the possibility that democratisation of environmental governance may not always produce the outcomes that are desirable by the conservationists. The tension between promise and liability embodied in democratisation of environmental governance is captured by the following quotations: The explosion of a non‐governmental movement and a democratic society … is really fundamental to environment. (Michael Wright, US Sub‐committee, 1996 US Subcommittee (1996) Africa's Environment: The Final Frontier Hearing before the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, 17 July (Washington DC) [Google Scholar]) Fortress conservation was an inherently authoritarian approach. By contrast, community conservation is undermined by much more democratic ideas; once the floodgate is opened the fortress may be swept away! (Adams & Hume, 1998 Adams B Hume D (1998) Conservation and communities: changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation (Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management; University of Manchester) [Google Scholar], p. 23)