Environmental governance proposals

The environment and natural resources must be considered common property world, who belong to specific categories of non-manufactured goods which, when shared, can be either divided or destroyed. The global nature of these properties stems from the fact that each of its constituent elements belongs to an integrated system. Everyone can enjoy the atmosphere, climate and biodiversity (among others) and at the same time, the entire planet suffers from the dramatic effects of global warming, the reduction of the ozone layeror the extinction of species. This global dimension encourages shared management.

A public good is characterized by its non-rivalry (a natural resource consumed by one person may always be by another) and by non-exclusivity (it is impossible to prevent someone from consuming this good). It is also recognized that a public good is beneficial and, as a result, benefits from the attribution of some value. The concept of global commons makes the distinction that they are goods that are necessary for life and therefore should not be controlled by one person or state.

The non-rivalry character of the good therefore requires a management that is neither competitive nor destructive, as is the free market, which would lead to its extinction, and it also constrains the granting of economic value to the resource in question, because its gratuity would lead to the same result. The water is perhaps the best example of this type of property.

The current state of play in environmental governance is, however, far from meeting one or more of these imperatives. Faced with the need to respond to the complex nature of the environmental issue, it is essential to set up a coherent multilateral management between all the actors concerned. So far, however, the global community has been unable to meet this challenge and current governance is plagued by many scourges. Thus, despite the growing awareness on environmental issues in developed countries and developingenvironmental degradation is continuing and new environmental problems are emerging. All this is due to the critical state of global environmental governance. The latter is unable to deal adequately with environmental problems because of different factors: fragmented governance within the United Nations, lack of involvement of financial institutions, proliferation of environmental agreements that often conflict with trade measures (there are more than 300 international multilateral treaties and about 900 bilateral international treaties). Added to all this, the division between the countries of the North and the persistent chasm between thedeveloped countries and developing countries must be taken into account to understand the institutional failure of the current global environmental governance.

Actors

International institutions

United Nations Environment Program
The UNEP has had its biggest impact as a monitoring and advisory body, and in developing environmental agreements. It has also contributed to strengthening the institutional capacity of environment ministries.

In 2002 UNEP held a conference to focus on product lifecycle impacts, emphasizing the fashion, advertising, financial and retail industries, seen as key agents in promoting sustainable consumption.

According to Ivanova, UNEP adds value in environmental monitoring, scientific assessment and information sharing, but cannot lead all environmental management processes. She proposed the following tasks for UNEP:

initiate a strategic independent overhaul of its mission;
consolidate the financial information and transparency process;
restructure organizing governance by creating an operative executive council that balances the omnipresence of the overly imposing and fairly ineffectual Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF).
Other proposals offer a new mandate to “produce greater unity amongst social and environmental agencies, so that the concept of ‘environment for development’ becomes a reality. It needs to act as a platform for establishing standards and for other types of interaction with national and international organizations and the United Nations. The principles of cooperation and common but differentiated responsibilities should be reflected in the application of this revised mandate.”

Sherman proposed principles to strengthen UNEP:

obtain a social consensus on a long-term vision;
analyze the current situation and future scenarios;
produce a comprehensive plan covering all aspects of sustainable development;
build on existing strategies and processes;
multiply links between national and local strategies;
include all these points in the financial and budget plan;
adopt fast controls to improve process piloting and identification of progress made;
implement effective participation mechanisms.
Another group stated, “Consider the specific needs of developing countries and respect of the fundamental principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. Developed countries should promote technology transfer, new and additional financial resources, and capacity building for meaningful participation of developing countries in international environmental governance. Strengthening of international environmental governance should occur in the context of sustainable development and should involve civil society as an important stakeholder and agent of transformation.”

Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Created in 1991, the Global Environment Facility is an independent financial organization initiated by donor governments including Germany and France. It was the first financial organization dedicated to the environment at the global level. As of 2013 it had 179 members. Donations are used for projects covering biodiversity, climate change, international waters, destruction of the ozone layer, soil degradation and persistent organic pollutants.

GEF’s institutional structure includes UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank. It is the funding mechanism for the four environmental conventions: climate change, biodiversity, persistent organic pollutants and desertification. GEF transfers resources from developed countries to developing countries to fund UNDP, UNEP and World Bank projects. The World Bank manages the annual budget of US$561.10 million.

The GEF has been criticized for its historic links with the World Bank, at least during its first phase during the 1990s, and for having favoured certain regions to the detriment of others. Another view sees it as contributing to the emergence of a global “green market”. It represents “an adaptation (of the World Bank) to this emerging world order, as a response to the emergence of environmental movements that are becoming a geopolitical force.” Developing countries demanded financial transfers to help them protect their environment.

GEF is subject to economic profitability criteria, as is the case for all the conventions. It received more funds in its first three years than the UNEP has since its creation in 1972. GEF funding represents less than 1% of development aid between 1992 and 2002.

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
This intergovernmental institution meets twice a year to assess follow-up on Rio Summit goals. The CSD is made up of 53 member states, elected every three years and was reformed in 2004 to help improve implementation of Agenda 21. It meets twice a year, focusing on a specific theme during each two-year period: 2004-2005 was dedicated to water and 2006-2007 to climate change. The CSD has been criticized for its low impact, general lack of presence and the absence of Agenda 21 at the state level specifically, according to a report by the World Resources Institute. Its mission focuses on sequencing actions and establishing agreements puts it in conflict with institutions such as UNEP and OECD.

World Environment Organization (WEO)
A proposed World Environment Organization, analogous to the World Health Organization could be capable of adapting treaties and enforcing international standards.

The European Union, particularly France and Germany, and a number of NGOs favour creating a WEO. The United Kingdom, the US and most developing countries prefer to focus on voluntary initiatives. WEO partisans maintain that it could offer better political leadership, improved legitimacy and more efficient coordination. Its detractors argue that existing institutions and missions already provide appropriate environmental governance; however the lack of coherence and coordination between them and the absence of clear division of responsibilities prevents them from greater effectiveness.

World Bank
The World Bank influences environmental governance through other actors, particularly the GEF. The World Bank’s mandate is not sufficiently defined in terms of environmental governance despite the fact that it is included in its mission. However, it allocates 5 to 10% of its annual funds to environmental projects. The institution’s capitalist vocation means that its investment is concentrated solely in areas which are profitable in terms of cost benefits, such as climate change action and ozone layer protection, whilst neglecting other such as adapting to climate change and desertification. Its financial autonomy means that it can make its influence felt indirectly on the creation of standards, and on international and regional negotiations.

Following intense criticism in the 1980s for its support for destructive projects which, amongst other consequences, caused deforestation of tropical forests, the World Bank drew up its own environment-related standards in the 1990s so it could correct its actions. These standards differ from UNEP’s standards, meant to be the benchmark, thus discrediting the institution and sowing disorder and conflict in the world of environmental governance. Other financial institutions, regional development banks and the private sector also drew up their own standards. Criticism is not directed at the World Bank’s standards in themselves, which Najam considered as “robust”, but at their legitimacy and efficacy.

GEF
The GEF’s account of itself as of 2012 is as “the largest public funder of projects to improve the global environment”, period, which “provides grants for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants.” It claims to have provided “$10.5 billion in grants and leveraging $51 billion in co-financing for over 2,700 projects in over 165 countries made more than 14,000 small grants directly to civil society and community-based organizations, totaling $634 million.” It serves as mechanism for the:

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)
implementation of Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer in some countries with “economies in transition”
This mandate reflects the restructured GEF as of October 2011.

World Trade Organization (WTO)
The WTO’s mandate does not include a specific principle on the environment. All the problems linked to the environment are treated in such a way as to give priority to trade requirements and the principles of the WTO’s own trade system. This produces conflictual situations. Even if the WTO recognizes the existence of MEAs, it denounces the fact that around 20 MEAs are in conflict with the WTO’s trade regulations. Furthermore, certain MEAs can allow a country to ban or limit trade in certain products if they do not satisfy established environmental protection requirements. In these circumstances, if one country’s ban relating to another country concerns two signatories of the same MEA, the principles of the treaty can be used to resolve the disagreement, whereas if the country affected by the trade ban with another country has not signed the agreement, the WTO demands that the dispute be resolved using the WTO’s trade principles, in other words, without taking into account the environmental consequences.

Some criticisms of the WTO mechanisms may be too broad. In a recently dispute over labelling of dolphin safe labels for tuna between the US and Mexico, the ruling was relatively narrow and did not, as some critics claimed,

International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The IMF’s mission is “to ensure the stability of the international monetary system”.

The IMF Green Fund proposal of Dominique Strauss-Kahn specifically to address “climate-related shocks in Africa”, despite receiving serious attention was rejected. Strauss-Kahn’s proposal, backed by France and Britain, was that “developed countries would make an initial capital injection into the fund using some of the $176 billion worth of SDR allocations from last year in exchange for a stake in the green fund.” However, “most of the 24 directors… told Strauss-Kahn that climate was not part of the IMF’s mandate and that SDR allocations are a reserve asset never intended for development issues.”

UN ICLEI
The UN’s main body for coordinating municipal and urban decision-making is named the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Its slogan is “Local Governments for Sustainability”. This body sponsored the concept of full cost accounting that makes environmental governance the foundation of other governance.

ICLEIs projects and achievements include:

Convincing thousands of municipal leaders to sign the World Mayors and Municipal Leaders Declaration on Climate Change (2005) which notably requests of other levels of government that:
Global trade regimes, credits and banking reserve rules be reformed to advance debt relief and incentives to implement policies and practices that reduce and mitigate climate change.
Starting national councils to implement this and other key agreements, e.g., ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA
Spreading ecoBudget (2008) and Triple Bottom Line (2007) “tools for embedding sustainability into council operations”, e.g. Guntur’s Municipal Corporation, one of the first four to ipmlement the entire framework.
Sustainability Planning Toolkit (launched 2009) integrating these and other tools
Cities Climate Registry (launched 2010) – part of UNEP Campaign on Cities and Climate Change
ICLEI promotes best practice exchange among municipal governments globally, especially green infrastructure, sustainable procurement.

Other secretariats
Other international institutions incorporate environmental governance in their action plans, including:

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), promoting development;
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) which works on the climate and atmosphere;
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) working on the protection of agriculture, forests and fishing;
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which focuses on nuclear security.
Over 30 UN agencies and programmes support environmental management, according to Najam. This produces a lack of coordination, insufficient exchange of information and dispersion of responsibilities. It also results in proliferation of initiatives and rivalry between them.

Criticism
According to Bauer, Busch and Siebenhüner, the different conventions and multilateral agreements of global environmental regulation is increasing their secretariats’ influence. Influence varies according to bureaucratic and leadership efficiency, choice of technical or client-centered.

The United Nations is often the target of criticism, including from within over the multiplication of secretariats due to the chaos it produces. Using a separate secretariat for each MEA creates enormous overhead given the 45 international-scale and over 500 other agreements.

States
Environmental governance at the state level
Environmental protection has created opportunities for mutual and collective monitoring among neighbouring states. The European Union provides an example of the institutionalization of joint regional and state environmental governance. Key areas include information, led by the European Environment Agency (EEA), and the production and monitoring of norms by states or local institutions. See also the Environmental policy of the European Union.

State participation in global environmental governance
US refusal to ratify major environment agreements produced tensions with ratifiers in Europe and Japan.

The World Bank, IMF and other institutions are dominated by the developed countries and do not always properly consider the requirements of developing countries.

Business
Environmental governance applies to business as well as government. Considerations are typical of those in other domains:

values (vision, mission, principles);
policy (strategy, objectives, targets);
oversight (responsibility, direction, training, communication);
process (management systems, initiatives, internal control, monitoring and review, stakeholder dialogue, transparency, environmental accounting, reporting and verification);
performance (performance indicators, benchmarking, eco-efficiency, reputation, compliance, liabilities, business development).
White and Klernan among others discuss the correlation between environmental governance and financial performance. This correlation is higher in sectors where environmental impacts are greater.

Business environmental issues include emissions, biodiversity, historical liabilities, product and material waste/recycling, energy use/supply and many others.

Environmental governance has become linked to traditional corporate governance as an increasing number of shareholders are corporate environmental impacts. Corporate governance is the set of processes, customs, policies, laws, and institutions affecting the way a corporation (or company) is managed. Corporate governance is affected by the relationships among stakeholders. These stakeholders research and quantify performance to compare and contrast the environmental performance of thousands of companies.

Large corporations with global supply chains evaluate the environmental performance of business partners and suppliers for marketing and ethical reasons. Some consumers seek environmentally friendly and sustainable products and companies.

Non-governmental organizations
According to Bäckstrand and Saward, “broader participation by non-state actors in multilateral environmental decisions (in varied roles such as agenda setting, campaigning, lobbying, consultation, monitoring, and implementation) enhances the democratic legitimacy of environmental governance.”

Local activism is capable of gaining the support of the people and authorities to combat environmental degradatation. In Cotacachi, Ecuador, a social movement used a combination of education, direct action, the influence of local public authorities and denunciation of the mining company’s plans in its own country, Canada, and the support of international environmental groups to influence mining activity.

Fisher cites cases in which multiple strategies were used to effect change. She describes civil society groups that pressure international institutions and also organize local events. Local groups can take responsibility for environmental governance in place of governments.

According to Bengoa, “social movements have contributed decisively to the creation of an institutional platform wherein the fight against poverty and exclusion has become an inescapable benchmark.” But despite successes in this area, “these institutional changes have not produced the processes for transformation that could have made substantial changes to the opportunities available to rural inhabitants, particularly the poorest and those excluded from society.” He cites several reasons:

conflict between in-group cohesion and openness to outside influence;
limited trust between individuals;
contradiction between social participation and innovation;
criticisms without credible alternatives to environmentally damaging activities
A successful initiative in Ecuador involved the establishment of stakeholder federations and management committees (NGOs, communities, municipalities and the ministry) for the management of a protected forest.

Proposals
The International Institute for Sustainable Development proposed an agenda for global governance. These objectives are:

expert leadership;
positioning science as the authoritative basis of sound environmental policy;
coherence and reasonable coordination;
well-managed institutions;
incorporate environmental concerns and actions within other areas of international policy and action
Coherence and coordination
Despite the increase in efforts, actors, agreements and treaties, the global environment continue to degrade at a rapid rate. From the big hole in Earth’s ozone layer to over-fishing to the uncertainties of climate change, the world is confronted by several intrinsically global challenges. However, as the environmental agenda becomes more complicated and extensive, the current system has proven ineffective in addressing and tackling problems related to trans-boundary externalities and the environment is still experiencing degradation at unprecedented levels.

Inforesources identifies four major obstacles to global environmental governance, and describes measures in response. The four obstacles are:

parallel structures and competition, without a coherent strategy
contradictions and incompatibilities, without appropriate compromise
competition between multiple agreements with incompatible objectives, regulations and processes
integrating policy from macro- to micro- scales.

Recommended measures:

MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) and conventions, combining sustainability and reduction of poverty and equity;
country-level approach linking global and local scales
coordination and division of tasks in a multilateral approach that supports developing countries and improves coordination between donor countries and institutions
use of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) in development planning
transform conflicts into tradeoffs, synergies and win-win options
Contemporary debates surrounding global environmental governance have converged on the idea of developing a stronger and more effective institutional framework. The views on how to achieve this, however, still hotly debated. Currently, rather than teaming up with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), international environmental responsibilities have been spread across many different agencies including: a) specialised agencies within the UN system such as the World Meteorological Organisation, the International Maritime Organisation and others; b) the programs in the UN system such as the UN Development Program; c) the UN regional economic and social commission; d) the Bretton Woods institutions; e) the World Trade Organisation and; f) the environmentally focused mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility and close to 500 international environmental agreements.

Some analysts also argue that multiple institutions and some degree of overlap and duplication in policies is necessary to ensure maximum output from the system. Others, however, claim that institutions have become too dispersed and lacking in coordination which can be damaging to their effectiveness in global environmental governance. Whilst there are various arguments for and against a WEO, the key challenge, however, remains the same: how to develop a rational and effective framework that will protect the global environment efficiently.

Democratization
Starting in 2002, Saward and others began to view the Earth Summit process as capable opening up the possibility of stakeholder democracy. The summits were deliberative rather than simply participative, with NGOs, women, men, indigenous peoples and businesses joining the decision-making process alongside states and international organizations, characterized by:

the importance given to scientific and technical considerations
the official and unofficial participation of many actors with heterogeneous activity scopes
growing uncertainty
a new interpretation of international law and social organization models
As of 2013, the absence of joint rules for composing such fora leads to the development of non-transparent relations that favour the more powerful stakeholders. Criticisms assert that they act more as a lobbying platform, wherein specific interest groups attempt to influence governments.

Institutional reform
Actors inside and outside the United Nations are discussing possibilities for global environmental governance that provides a solution to current problems of fragility, coordination and coherence. Deliberation is focusing on the goal of making UNEP more efficient. A 2005 resolution recognizes “the need for more efficient environmental activities in the United Nations system, with enhanced coordination, improved policy advice and guidance, strengthened scientific knowledge, assessment and cooperation, better treaty compliance, while respecting the legal autonomy of the treaties, and better integration of environmental activities in the broader sustainable development framework.”

Proposals include:

greater and better coordination between agencies;
strengthen and acknowledge UNEP’s scientific role;
identify MEA areas to strengthen coordination, cooperation and teamwork between different agreements;
increase regional presence;
implement the Bali Strategic Plan on improving technology training and support for the application of environmental measures in poor countries;
demand that UNEP and MEAs participate formally in all relevant WTO committees as observers.
strengthen its financial situation;
improve secretariats’ efficiency and effectiveness.

One of the main studies addressing this issue proposes:

clearly divide tasks between development organizations, UNEP and the MEAs
adopt a political direction[clarification needed] for environmental protection and sustainable development
authorize the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum to adopt the UNEP medium-term strategy
allow Member States to formulate and administer MEAs an independent secretariat for each convention
support UNEP in periodically assessing MEAs and ensure coordination and coherence
establish directives for setting up national/regional platforms capable of incorporating MEAs in the Common Country Assessment (CCA) process and United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF)
establish a global joint planning framework
study the aptitude and efficiency of environmental activities’ funding, focusing on differential costs
examine and redefine the concept of funding differential costs as applicable to existing financial mechanisms
reconsider remits, division of tasks and responsibilities between entities that provide services to the multipartite conferences. Clearly define the services that UN offices provide to MEA secretariats
propose measures aiming to improve personnel provision and geographic distribution for MEA secretariats
improve transparency resource use for supporting programmes and in providing services to MEAs. Draw up a joint budget for services supplied to MEAs.

Education
A 2001 Alliance 21 report proposes six fields of action:

strengthen citizens’ critical faculties to ensure greater democratic control of political orientations
develop a global and critical approach
develop civic education training for teachers
develop training for certain socio-professional groups
develop environmental education for the entire population;
assess the resulting experiences of civil society
Transform daily life
Individuals can modify consumption, based on voluntary simplicity: changes in purchasing habits, simplified lifestyles (less work, less consumption, more socialization and constructive leisure time). But individual actions must not replace vigilance and pressure on policies. Notions of responsible consumption developed over decades, revealing the political nature of individual purchases, according to the principle that consumption should satisfy the population’s basic needs. These needs comprise the physical wellbeing of individuals and society, a healthy diet, access to drinking water and plumbing, education, healthcare and physical safety. The general attitude centres on the need to reduce consumption and reuse and recycle materials. In the case of food consumption, local, organic and fair trade products which avoid ill treatment of animals has become a major trend.

Alternatives to the personal automobile are increasing, including public transport, car sharing and bicycles and alternative propulsion systems.

Alternative energy sources are becoming less costly.

Ecological industrial processes turn the waste from one industry into raw materials for another.

Governments can reduce subsidies/increase taxes/tighten regulation on unsustainable activities.

The Community Environmental governance Global Alliance encourages holistic approaches to environmental and economic challenges, incorporating indigenous knowledge. Okotoks, Alberta capped population growth based on the carrying capacity of the Sheep River. The Fraser Basin Council Watershed Governance in British Columbia, Canada, manages issues that span municipal jurisdictions. Smart Growth is an international movement that employs key tenets of Environmental governance in urban planning.

Policies and regulations
Establish policies and regulations that promote “infrastructures for well being” whilst addressing the political, physical and cultural levels.

Eliminate subsidies that have a negative environmental impact and tax pollution

Promoting workers’ personal and family development.

Coordination
A programme of national workshops on synergies between the three Rio Conventions launched in late 2000, in collaboration with the relevant secretariats. The goal was to strengthen coordination at the local level by:

sharing information
promoting political dialogue to obtain financial support and implement programmes
enabling the secretariats to update their joint work programmes.
According to Campbell, “In the context of globalization, the question of linking up environmental themes with other subjects, such as trade, investment and conflict resolution mechanisms, as well as the economic incentives to participate in and apply agreements would seem to provide an important lesson for the effective development of environmental governance structures.” Environmental concerns would become part of the global economic system. “These problems also contain the seeds of a new generation of international conflicts that could affect both the stability of international relations and collective security. Which is why the concept of ‘collective security’ has arisen.”

Moving local decisions to the global level is as important as the way in which local initiatives and best practices are part of a global system. Kanie points out that NGOs, scientists, international institutions and stakeholder partnerships can reduce the distance that separates the local and international levels.

Source from Wikipedia