Towards a new architecture of global environmental governance?
Jan 15th, 2011 by Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega
The past couple of weeks we have been discussing the structure of the United Nations Environment Programme (you can read some of Dr. Maria Ivanova’s recent work on global environmental governance and the UNEP). Fragmentation in global environmental politics is not surprising (at least to me). We live in a world where resource constraints and organizational and institutional design is not always optimal. Moreover, our thinking about environmental issues has evolved profoundly from the 1972 Stockholm United Nations Convention on the Human Environment to the Johannesburg 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (see that the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development is already planning the 2012 Rio+20 Summit).
The past week, we spent some time discussing how we could build a new architecture of global environmental governance. Share your discussions/own views here. While some people may see the ideas a bit far-fetched, my interest is, as I mentioned, to make you begin think about different ways in which you (individually) could begin to participate in the design of a more robust global environmental governance framework. Keep, as always, your commentary respectful.
If there is going to be a large scale movement towards global environmental governance, I feel as though it will happen along currently existing geopolitical lines and groups. Traditionally, groups such as La Francophonie, the European Union, and the Organization of American States have played a significant role in economic, environmental and security issues across nations. There’s no reason to suggest that this kind of interaction and organized action could not be used similarly to combat global climate change, or any other form of global environmental issue such bodies choose to debate.
The biggest issue would appear to be putting these important issues on the agenda for these groups and others.
I think a fair part of continuing this evolution can be found in the shifting of paradigms from Global Environmental Governance to “Earth Systems Governance.” While on the surface it might not seem like much has changed I would argue differently. Just based on the meanings of the words used to describe an international environmental governance, “Earth systems” strike me as inclusive for all life on Earth and less anthropocentric than “global environmental governance.” Not to mention the idea of many systems working in a certain balance, not always up to humanities own interests. We have to look beyond our interests to the interests of all.
Changing the way we word and think about international environmental governance could potentially further the realization that we are but one part surrounded by many other parts to a much larger organism that is Earth. This might deepen the “green phase” that has been occurring in the West, from its superficial level of consumerism, to a new culture of true sustainability both on the individual level and on the international realm. But the shift has to occur much like a two pronged, or pincer movement attack; one at the local level, and one at the international level, both attacks working their way into peoples’ minds to change a whole culture.
I belive the movement towards a Global Environmental Governance will not happen along traditional geopolitical lines. Existing institutions will have to play a role in it, but for a true shift in governance to occur new groups and institutions must arise. At the moment many of the insititutions in place that may have an impact on GEG, like the OAS, NATO, World Bank, IMF, etc. dont have enough autonomy from the UNited States or China. As long as these countries maintain their adamant positions on GEG, the institions linked to them will not very likely support the widespread changes that are needed to solve today’s environmental problems.
New institutions and groups must form and work with current groups like the EU, to create an alternative to the US or Chinese dominance (recently many have been calling the Chinese the new super power). If big countries are adamant on stopping change on current institutions, new ones must arise to give the world an alternative and put pressure on the US, China and others to change their policies. Alternatives to the World Bank and IMF must also arise to give loans to countries under conditions to increase environmental standards, not reduce them like the IMF’s SAP’s have, for so, long promoted. If enough developing countries (which are the most affected by environmental injustice) join with the EU and other OECD countries willing to move towards GEG, pressure can be placed from the outside to change the policies of the big powers.
In conclusion, at the moment the current institutions are controlled by those who want no change. Even those institutions like the EU which are making attempts at GEG cannot excert enough pressure for the US and China to change their policies. New alternatives must arise, not only to bring governance outside the status quo, but also to place even stronger pressure on existing institutions.
(I also agree with Guilherme that there has to be a change in paradigm and discourse to solve these problems. New institutions and groups may be part of this paradigm shift).
A new structure for GEG (Global Environmental Governance) may have to run along the lines of reforming/creating global standards to different levels of commitment at improving environmental conditions at the state level. This would be dependent not on what the country wants to do, but what it is capable of doing given it’s current policies and it’s available resources. As such, to clarify, i mean that short term standards should be minimal and achievable to gain maximum cooperation between states…. Just a thought…
Guilherme,
I am curious as to how using the term “Earth Systems governance” is less anthropocentric than “Global environmental governance”. To me at least, the two are completely synonymous.
From my BSc education I understand the global environment to be the sum of our biological, chemical, and physical “earth systems”. However, the two terms – earth systems and global environment – are so vague and broad that any distinction between the two is kind of arbitrary.
In any case, the only thing I see as anthropocentric about either of the terms is the fact that they have to do with “governing” the earth – a very anthropocentric idea. After all, who are we to govern the earth?
I agree with you that wording is a large part building a new global environmental governance architecture. However, I think I misunderstand your reasoning about how making a shift from global environmental governance to earth systems governance would make a difference.
We understand global environmental governance (GEG) as the sum of organizations, policy instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that regulate the processes of global environmental protection. Even though the GEG system has achieved much in the way of new treaties, more money and a more participatory and active system through institutions like the United Nations Programme, GEG proves ineffective. For example, despite discussions about global climate change, carbon emissions continue to rise; global atmospheric CO2 levels that were around 300 ppm in the early 1900s have now reached approximately 380 ppm. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also found that approximately 60 per cent of the ecosystems that it examined were either being degraded or used unsustainably. Since 1980, 35 per cent of the world’s mangroves have been lost and 20 per cent of the world’s precious coral reefs have been destroyed. A decade after the signing of the Biodiversity Convention, the species extinction rate is still 1,000 times higher than what would be occurring naturally, without human impact. Despite the dozens of global and regional fisheries treaties, an estimated 90 per cent of the total weight of large predators in the oceans—such as tuna, sharks and swordfish—have disappeared over the last few decades. There are obviously key challenges to having an effective global governance. One explanation is that there are inconsistencies in the rules and norms of each country part of the global arena. This problem can produce another problem of non cooperation amongst nations, perhaps due to their differing economies. Another problem could be because of the lack of funding for global environmental institutions. They mostly depend on voluntary contributions, and that remains unpredictable. As we had discussed in class, it seems more idealistic to bring environmental governance to the local level, because that’s where the people are closest to their immediate environment and have better knowledge of the issues they are dealing with and can deal with the matter quicker perhaps.