What does our research say?
Findings from the eight countries assessed in our regional baseline report tell an interesting story. While people across Southeast Asia are becoming more adept on engaging their governments in protecting the environment, resource and capacity constraints continue to inhibit the ability of authorities and institutions to engage the public and guaranteeing access to fair and inclusive legal mechanisms. Regional forums have also emerged, where countries share lessons and strategies but not without their own set of limitations, from weak legal frameworks to corruption and closing civic space. Deep inequalities—stemming from wide economic disparity, digital divide, and geographic spread—mean that structurally-disadvantaged groups and individuals are often left behind.
In the early phase of the Observatory’s development, Indonesia served as the pilot country. On paper, Indonesia’s EDO score is indeed above average compared to others in the region. Existence of legal framework such as the Public Information Disclosure Law, for example, establish a mechanism for public information transparency that gives Indonesia a strong foundation for a good score. However, this has not necessarily translated into robust transparency of government decision-making and policy enforcement. The passage of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation exemplifies how the provision of laws does not guarantee that democratic processes function as they are intended when communities continue to face restrictions in monitoring and influencing environmental policymaking.
“It is important to critically examine who gets to define the problems, who make the policies, and how those policies are enforced.”
Indah Surya Wardhani, Researcher at PolGov and Lead Researcher for ASEAN Environmental Democracy Observatory
Systematic exclusion of underrepresented groups
This underscores what is perhaps the most urgent finding of our EDO regional baseline report, which is the systemic exclusion of underrepresented groups. Rural communities, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor often bear the brunt of environmental degradation yet struggle the most to participate in decision-making, which poses not just a procedural flaw—but also an existential threat. Across the region, environmental defenders—mainly journalists and activists—also risk threats of violence, legal persecution, and systemic suppression, leaving those at the frontline of environmental protection extremely also the most vulnerable.
The Observatory’s cross-country analysis reveals both unique and common struggles in the region. In Malaysia, citizens express frustration over limited transparency and low satisfaction with access to information. In Myanmar, despite an authoritarian military government in place, some actors still comply with international sustainability standards, though public participation remains constrained. Across the region, funding for participatory initiatives is scarce, and parliaments often prioritise political manoeuvring over environmental oversight. These lessons underline that environmental democracy cannot be measured by a single scorecard. It is a process upon which the results are uneven, fragile, and deeply contextual.
“Legislative action is our first line of defence against the climate crisis.”
YB Lee Chean Chung, Member of the Malaysian Parliament and President of the Southeast Asian Parliamentarians against Corruption 2025–2027
The role of human intelligence and adaptability
One striking insight from our EDO assessment is the importance of human intelligence and adaptability. Laws, regulations, and infrastructure to support public participation are important, but real change stems from the people themselves—activists, academics, citizens, and politicians—who navigate formal structures while creating informal networks of resistance and innovation. Ultimately, environmental democracy is not just about governments granting rights, but also about citizens claiming space, shaping narratives, and delivering civic initiatives. Participation is not charity from those at the top of the structure; it is power built from below at the grassroots level.
Looking ahead
The EDO report outlines how corruption and absence of government accountability accelerate and exacerbate the impact of the climate crisis. Yet our findings looking at the contexts of the eight Southeast Asian countries show that climate governance remains underexplored in many domestic contexts. National policies and country’s commitment to Paris Agreement often look ambitious, but they fail to connect with local realities.
Bridging this gap requires more than legal frameworks. It calls for inclusive processes that amplify the perspectives of underrepresented groups, ensure genuine participation, and strengthen protection for environmental defenders. It also requires recognising the embedded resilience in communities that have long fought for their environment, often without recognition or support.
“Those who experience direct impact and have no access to information or justice are the most vulnerable to climate change risks.”
Dyah Paramitha, Researcher at the Centre for Regulation Policy and Governance
The EDO initiative neither aims to rank countries nor to declare winners and losers. Instead, it highlights patterns, strengths, and weaknesses, it offers a mirror for societies to see themselves more clearly in the hopes to spark collective solutions across Southeast Asia.
Two years on, the Observatory has already begun to reshape how we think about environmental governance. It reminds us that democracy is not an abstract score—it is lived in the struggles of citizens who demand clean air and drinking water, protect the forests, and ensure our voice is heard in how decisions that affect our lives at the very top of the democratic systems.
Inclusive governance is not a “nice-to-have" option that governments can arbitrarily choose to fulfil one day and dismiss another day. If environmental democracy is to mean anything, it must belong to everyone—especially those who have been left out for too long.
Photo credit: Pares
Search
Popular search terms:
WFD’s Environmental Democracy Observatory charts a path for inclusive environmental governance
WFD’s Environmental Democracy Observatory charts a path for inclusive environmental governance
Amelia Wijayanti
Two years ago in Indonesia, an initiative was born that would later ripple across Southeast Asia’s debates on climate, justice, and governance. The Environmental Democracy Observatory (EDO), created by Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) in collaboration with the Research Centre for Politic and Government (PolGov) of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), was designed to capture the reality of environmental democracy through expert assessment of regulations and their enforcement. On 20 August 2025, the Observatory’s assessment results for seven ASEAN member states (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and Timor-Leste was formally introduced during the Bulaksumur Roundtable Forum in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
EDO builds upon earlier frameworks, such as the Environmental Democracy Index (EDI), launched by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and The Access Initiative (TAI) in 2016, with modification using a supply-demand framework. This means that the Observatory looks at not only the presence of relevant policies (demand), but also how they enable active citizenry to influence decision-making and oversee its implementation (supply).
The framework rests on a simple but important truth: the quality of our environment is interlinked with the depth of our democratic systems and processes. This includes three interlocking rights enshrined by Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration and then the 2010 Bali Guidelines: access to information, public participation, and access to justice. Beyond abstract concepts, these are the everyday tools that people need to defend their rights to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
What is environmental democracy?
Environmental democracy emphasis on the strong links between action to address climate and environmental crises and action to strengthen democracy. Increased participation of all people in decision-making and strong environmental rule of law are crucial to delivering action on climate change. Environmental democracy has three pillars: transparency, participation and justice.
What does our research say?
Findings from the eight countries assessed in our regional baseline report tell an interesting story. While people across Southeast Asia are becoming more adept on engaging their governments in protecting the environment, resource and capacity constraints continue to inhibit the ability of authorities and institutions to engage the public and guaranteeing access to fair and inclusive legal mechanisms. Regional forums have also emerged, where countries share lessons and strategies but not without their own set of limitations, from weak legal frameworks to corruption and closing civic space. Deep inequalities—stemming from wide economic disparity, digital divide, and geographic spread—mean that structurally-disadvantaged groups and individuals are often left behind.
In the early phase of the Observatory’s development, Indonesia served as the pilot country. On paper, Indonesia’s EDO score is indeed above average compared to others in the region. Existence of legal framework such as the Public Information Disclosure Law, for example, establish a mechanism for public information transparency that gives Indonesia a strong foundation for a good score. However, this has not necessarily translated into robust transparency of government decision-making and policy enforcement. The passage of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation exemplifies how the provision of laws does not guarantee that democratic processes function as they are intended when communities continue to face restrictions in monitoring and influencing environmental policymaking.
Systematic exclusion of underrepresented groups
This underscores what is perhaps the most urgent finding of our EDO regional baseline report, which is the systemic exclusion of underrepresented groups. Rural communities, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor often bear the brunt of environmental degradation yet struggle the most to participate in decision-making, which poses not just a procedural flaw—but also an existential threat. Across the region, environmental defenders—mainly journalists and activists—also risk threats of violence, legal persecution, and systemic suppression, leaving those at the frontline of environmental protection extremely also the most vulnerable.
The Observatory’s cross-country analysis reveals both unique and common struggles in the region. In Malaysia, citizens express frustration over limited transparency and low satisfaction with access to information. In Myanmar, despite an authoritarian military government in place, some actors still comply with international sustainability standards, though public participation remains constrained. Across the region, funding for participatory initiatives is scarce, and parliaments often prioritise political manoeuvring over environmental oversight. These lessons underline that environmental democracy cannot be measured by a single scorecard. It is a process upon which the results are uneven, fragile, and deeply contextual.
The role of human intelligence and adaptability
One striking insight from our EDO assessment is the importance of human intelligence and adaptability. Laws, regulations, and infrastructure to support public participation are important, but real change stems from the people themselves—activists, academics, citizens, and politicians—who navigate formal structures while creating informal networks of resistance and innovation. Ultimately, environmental democracy is not just about governments granting rights, but also about citizens claiming space, shaping narratives, and delivering civic initiatives. Participation is not charity from those at the top of the structure; it is power built from below at the grassroots level.
Looking ahead
The EDO report outlines how corruption and absence of government accountability accelerate and exacerbate the impact of the climate crisis. Yet our findings looking at the contexts of the eight Southeast Asian countries show that climate governance remains underexplored in many domestic contexts. National policies and country’s commitment to Paris Agreement often look ambitious, but they fail to connect with local realities.
Bridging this gap requires more than legal frameworks. It calls for inclusive processes that amplify the perspectives of underrepresented groups, ensure genuine participation, and strengthen protection for environmental defenders. It also requires recognising the embedded resilience in communities that have long fought for their environment, often without recognition or support.
The EDO initiative neither aims to rank countries nor to declare winners and losers. Instead, it highlights patterns, strengths, and weaknesses, it offers a mirror for societies to see themselves more clearly in the hopes to spark collective solutions across Southeast Asia.
Two years on, the Observatory has already begun to reshape how we think about environmental governance. It reminds us that democracy is not an abstract score—it is lived in the struggles of citizens who demand clean air and drinking water, protect the forests, and ensure our voice is heard in how decisions that affect our lives at the very top of the democratic systems.
Inclusive governance is not a “nice-to-have" option that governments can arbitrarily choose to fulfil one day and dismiss another day. If environmental democracy is to mean anything, it must belong to everyone—especially those who have been left out for too long.
Photo credit: Pares
Related content