Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014Get rights and content

The current institutional framework for sustainable development is by far not strong enough to bring about the swift transformative progress that is needed. This article contends that incrementalism—the main approach since the 1972 Stockholm Conference—will not suffice to bring about societal change at the level and speed needed to mitigate and adapt to earth system transformation. Instead, the article argues that transformative structural change in global governance is needed, and that the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro must turn into a major stepping stone for a much stronger institutional framework for sustainable development. The article details core areas where urgent action is required. The article is based on an extensive social science assessment conducted by 32 members of the lead faculty, scientific steering committee, and other affiliates of the Earth System Governance Project. This Project is a ten-year research initiative under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), which is sponsored by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations University (UNU).

Highlights

► National and international institutions need to be reoriented towards effective earth system governance. ► The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development should be a major stepping stone for reform. ► Strengthened international bodies such as a UN Sustainable Development Council and a World Environment Organization are needed. ► Stronger reliance on qualified majority-voting in international decision-making is important. ► Consultative role of civil society representatives in global governance should be enhanced.

Introduction

Global environmental protection has been on the international political agenda since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment. More than 900 environmental treaties are in force. Yet overall these efforts have not been effective in altering the decade-long trends of human-induced environmental degradation. Recent studies indicate that human activities are moving numerous planetary sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical for the previous 500 000 years [1, 2]. The nature of these changes, their magnitude and rates of change are unprecedented. At the same time, basic human needs are still not met in many parts of the world.

It has become clear that human societies must completely change course and steer away from critical tipping points in the earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change, while ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all [3]. This requires a fundamental transformation of existing practices. The mitigation of climate change, for instance, calls for dramatic change in the way we produce and consume energy and for a decisive shift to a low carbon energy supply, along with substantial improvement of energy provision to the poorest communities.

Our research indicates that the current institutional framework for sustainable development is deeply inadequate to bring about the swift transformative progress that is needed. In our view, incrementalism—the main approach since the 1972 Stockholm Conference—will not suffice to bring about societal change at the level and speed needed to mitigate and adapt to earth system transformation. Instead, we argue that transformative structural change in global governance is needed.

The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro should turn into a major stepping stone for a much stronger institutional framework for sustainable development. We urge decision-makers to seize this opportunity to develop a clear and ambitious roadmap for institutional change in order to achieve much needed fundamental reform of sustainability governance within the next decade.

This article outlines nine areas where major reforms are most urgently needed, ranging from how international legal standards are negotiated to questions of legitimacy and equity. It is based on a comprehensive assessment conducted in 2011 by the Earth System Governance Project, a ten-year social science-based research programme under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) [4, 5••]. The project has evolved into the largest social science network in its field, involving nearly 1700 colleagues along with a core network of twelve institutions in the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Research Centres.

The assessment has been mandated by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, the World Climate Research Program, the biodiversity-sciences program Diversitas, and the IHDP as a central policy output of the 2012 London Conference ‘Planet under Pressure.’ The assessment also serves as a key social science contribution to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which will focus on the institutional framework for sustainable development and its possible reform.

Section snippets

Strengthen international environmental treaties

First, it is important to revise and improve the design of international treaties to make them more effective [6••]. For example, governments can speed up negotiations by conducting them within existing institutions and by splitting up problems into smaller negotiation packages. At times, negotiators can sacrifice substance and stringency to first reach ‘shallow’ but inclusive agreements that can be built on later, for example in framework-plus-protocol approaches, tacit-acceptance procedures

Manage conflicts among international treaties

A second area where reforms are needed concerns conflicts among different treaties within sustainability policy and vis-à-vis other policy domains [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. Several political strategies to reduce such conflicts emerge from social science research. To begin with, the requirement to respect and support the objectives enshrined in (other) multilateral environmental treaties must be accepted as a principle. Governments should also strengthen the capacity and mandate of environmental

Fill regulatory gaps by negotiating new international agreements

In addition to strengthening existing environmental treaties and their interaction with economic treaties, there are numerous areas where new frameworks are needed. We suggest five areas where a transformation of the current governance architecture should include new and strengthened international regimes.

One such area is policy to govern the development and deployment of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geoengineering. Such emerging technologies promise

Upgrade UNEP and the UNCSD

A transformation of the current governance architecture also requires a reorientation of the system of international organizations and agencies. Research on international environmental organizations shows that they play vital roles in governance for sustainable development, yet also need further strengthening [34, 35, 36]. Many reform proposals have been submitted in recent decades [37, 38]. Some of the more radical proposals—such as an international agency that centralizes and integrates

Strengthen national governance

The shortcomings of international institutions largely reflect the shortcomings of domestic policies. An effective institutional framework for sustainable development also requires critical innovations at the national level. Here, new policy instruments—often involving non-state actors—have become popular in the last few decades to overcome implementation gaps [48]. Voluntary agreements between government and industry are a prominent example. Emission trading is another one, especially in

Streamline and strengthen governance beyond the nation state

The last two decades have seen tremendous growth in new types of governance, including public-private partnerships, transnational labeling schemes, and hybrid market mechanisms.

There is increasing evidence that the more than 300 partnerships for sustainable development that have been agreed around the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development—the so-called ‘type-2 outcomes’ of this summit—have not delivered on their promise [52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57]. Overall, research suggests

Strengthen accountability and legitimacy

Traditional intergovernmental processes face increasing pressures for access to decision making by all affected parties and improved accountability. As non-state and public-private forms of governance proliferate, such pressures increase. For example, standard-setting—whether through traditional bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization or environmental and social certification systems—requires broad responsiveness to affected communities in North and South, as well as

Address equity concerns within and among countries

In addition to increased accountability and legitimacy, a transformation of the institutional framework for sustainable development must also address questions of justice, fairness, and equity.

This includes, for one, questions of equity within countries. Here, environmental governance often seems to involve a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency, and equity. Yet in most complex environmental problems, this trade-off presents a false dichotomy. Environmental problems are inherently

Prepare global governance for a warmer world

A final area where transformative change in global governance is needed is adaptation. Given the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, complete mitigation of global environmental change is out of our reach. The institutional framework for sustainable development must hence also include governance for adaptation—to allow societies to cope with changes that we may no longer be able to prevent [92].

As for local governance systems, social science research indicates that the adaptiveness

Conclusion

In sum, current social science research has indicated substantial shortcomings in the functioning of the institutional framework for sustainable development. Yet there are also major opportunities to improve global, national and local governance, institutions and practices. Incrementalism—the hallmark of the last decades—will not suffice to bring about societal change at the level and speed needed to mitigate and adapt to earth system transformation brought about by human action. Instead, swift

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Acknowledgements

We owe our gratitude for valuable comments to many colleagues who have commented on this assessment during presentations and reviews, in particular Harro van Asselt, Owen Gaffney, Philippe Le Prestre, Tim Rayner, Surendra Shurestha, the participants of the Conversation Cafe on the Architecture of International Environmental Governance at the 2011 Colorado Conference on Earth System Governance, as well as the editors and reviewers of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Financial and

References (108)

  • A. Underdal

    Determining the causal significance of institutions: accomplishments and challenges

  • H. Breitmeier et al.

    Analyzing International Environmental Regimes: From Case Study to Database

    (2006)
  • J. Hovi et al.

    The limits of the law of the least ambitous program

    Global Environmental Politics

    (2006)
  • K. Alter et al.

    The politics of international regime complexity

    Perspectives on Politics

    (2009)
  • K. Raustiala et al.

    The regime complex for plant genetic resources

    International Organization

    (2004)
  • F. Biermann et al.

    The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis

    Global Environmental Politics

    (2009)
  • R.O. Keohane et al.

    The regime complex for climate change

    Perspectives on Politics

    (2011)
  • S. Oberthür

    Interplay management: enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions

    International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

    (2009)
  • P. Newell

    Fit for purpose: towards a development architecture that can deliver

  • S. Bernstein et al.

    Fragmentation and compromise in global environmental governance

  • S. Bernstein et al.

    Non-state global standard setting and the WTO. Legitimacy and the need for regulatory space

    Journal of International Economic Law

    (2008)
  • K.W. Abbott

    An international framework agreement on scientific and technological innovation and regulation

  • K.W. Abbott et al.

    A framework convention for nanotechnology?

    Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis

    (2006)
  • C. Pahl-Wostl et al.

    Governance and the global water system: a theoretical exploration

    Global Governance

    (2008)
  • J. Dellapenna et al.

    Toward global law on water

    Global Governance

    (2008)
  • J. Clapp et al.

    The Global Food Crisis: Governance Challenges and Opportunities

    (2009)
  • International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD): Rural Poverty Report 2011. Rome;...
  • P. Newell

    The governance of energy finance: the public, the private and the hybrid

    Global Policy

    (2011)
  • S.I. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen

    The United Nations and global energy governance: past challenges, future choices

    Global Change, Peace and Security

    (2010)
  • M. Falkenmark et al.

    Freshwater and welfare fragility

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. Biological Sciences

    (2003)
  • L.J. Gordon et al.

    Agricultural modifications of hydrological flows create ecological surprises

    Trends in Ecology and Evolution

    (2008)
  • B. Desai

    Revitalizing international environmental institutions: The UN Task Force Report and beyond

    Indian Journal of International Law

    (2000)
  • M. Ivanova

    Moving forward by looking back: learning from UNEP's history

  • O.R. Young

    The architecture of global environmental governance: bringing science to bear on policy

    Global Environmental Politics

    (2008)
  • S. Oberthür et al.

    Reforming international environmental governance: an institutional perspective on proposals for a world environment organization

  • K. von Moltke

    Clustering international environmental agreements as an alternative to a world environment organization

  • D.C. Esty

    The case for a global environmental organization

  • D.C. Esty

    Stepping up to the global environmental challenge

    Fordham Environmental Law Journal

    (1996)
  • F. Biermann

    The case for a world environment organization

    Environment

    (2000)
  • S. Charnovitz

    Toward a world environment organization: reflections upon a vital debate

  • A. Najam et al.

    Global Environmental Governance: A Reform Agenda

    (2007)
  • Earth System Governance Project: Towards a Charter Moment: Hakone Vision on Governance for Sustainability in the 21st...
  • A. Jordan et al.

    The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government?

    Political Studies

    (2005)
  • OECD

    Tradeable Permits: Policy Evaluation, Design and Reform

    (2004)
  • Cited by (138)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text