Environmental governance explained

Environmental governance (EG) consists of a system of laws, norms, rules, policies and practices that dictate how the board members of an environment related regulatory body should manage and oversee the affairs of any environment related regulatory body^[1] which is responsible for ensuring sustainability (sustainable development) and manage all human activities—political, social and economic.^[2] Environmental governance includes government, business and civil society, and emphasizes whole system management. To capture this diverse range of elements, environmental governance often employs alternative systems of governance, for example watershed-based management.^[3]

In some cases, it views natural resources and the environment as global public goods, belonging to the category of goods that are not diminished when they are shared.^[4] This means that everyone benefits from, for example, a breathable atmosphere, stable climate and stable biodiversity.

Governance in an environmental context may refer to:

• a concept in political ecology which promotes environmental policy that advocates for sustainable human activity (i.e. that governance should be based upon environmental principles).
• the processes of decision-making involved in the control and management of the environment and natural resources.

Definitions

Environmental governance refers to the processes of decision-making involved in the control and management of the environment and natural resources. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), define environmental governance as the "multi-level interactions (i.e., local, national, international/global) among, but not limited to, three main actors, i.e., state, market, and civil society, which interact with one another, whether in formal and informal ways; in formulating and implementing policies in response to environment-related demands and inputs from the society; bound by rules, procedures, processes, and widely accepted behavior; possessing characteristics of “good governance”; for the purpose of attaining environmentally-sustainable development" (IUCN 2014).

Key principles of environmental governance include:

• Embedding the environment in all levels of decision-making and action
• Conceptualizing cities and communities, economic and political life as a subset of the environment
• Emphasizing the connection of people to the ecosystems in which they live
• Promoting the transition from open-loop/cradle-to-grave systems (like garbage disposal with no recycling) to closed-loop/cradle-to-cradle systems (like permaculture and zero waste strategies).

Challenges

Challenges facing environmental governance include:

• Inadequate continental and global agreements
• Unresolved tensions between maximum development, sustainable development and maximum protection, limiting funding, damaging links with the economy and limiting application of Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs).
• Environmental funding is not self-sustaining, diverting resources from problem-solving into funding battles.
• Lack of integration of sector policies
• Inadequate institutional capacities
• Ill-defined priorities
• Unclear objectives
• Lack of coordination within the UN, governments, the private sector and civil society
• Lack of shared vision
• Interdependencies among development/sustainable economic growth, trade, agriculture, health, peace and security.
• International imbalance between environmental governance and trade and finance programs, e.g., World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Limited credit for organizations running projects within the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
• Linking UNEP, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank with MEAs
• Lack of government capacity to satisfy MEA obligations
• Absence of the gender perspective and equity in environmental governance
• Inability to influence public opinion^{[5] [6] [7]}
• Time lag between human action and environmental effect, sometimes as long as a generation^[8]
• Environmental problems being embedded in very complex systems, of which our understanding is still quite weak^[8]

All of these challenges have implications on governance, however international environmental governance is necessary. The IDDRI claims that rejection of multilateralism in the name of efficiency and protection of national interests conflicts with the promotion of international law and the concept of global public goods. Others cite the complex nature of environmental problems.

On the other hand, The Agenda 21 program has been implemented in over 7,000 communities.^[9] Environmental problems, including global-scale problems, may not always require global solutions. For example, marine pollution can be tackled regionally, and ecosystem deterioration can be addressed locally. Other global problems such as climate change benefit from local and regional action.

Issues of scale

Multi-tier governance

The literature on governance scale shows how changes in the understanding of environmental issues have led to the movement from a local view to recognising their larger and more complicated scale. This move brought an increase in the diversity, specificity and complexity of initiatives. Meadowcroft pointed out innovations that were layered on top of existing structures and processes, instead of replacing them.^[10]

Lafferty and Meadowcroft give three examples of multi-tiered governance: internationalisation, increasingly comprehensive approaches, and involvement of multiple governmental entities.^[11] Lafferty and Meadowcroft described the resulting multi-tiered system as addressing issues on both smaller and wider scales.

Institutional fit

Hans Bruyninckx claimed that a mismatch between the scale of the environmental problem and the level of the policy intervention was problematic.^[12] Young claimed that such mismatches reduced the effectiveness of interventions.^[13] Most of the literature addresses the level of governance rather than ecological scale.

Elinor Ostrom, amongst others, claimed that the mismatch is often the cause of unsustainable management practices and that simple solutions to the mismatch have not been identified.^{[14] [15]}

Scales

At the local level

Local authorities are confronted with similar sustainability and environmental problems all over the world. Environmental challenges for cities include for example air pollution, heat waves, complex supply chains, and recycling systems. Some cities, especially megacities in the global South, are rapidly growing—putting an additional stress on them.

Cities and their governments have a growing importance in global policymaking.^[16] They can be spaces for creative responses to global problems, sites of new policy cultures with less hierarchical structures, and hubs for innovation. Cities can conduct local sustainability projects and join forces in global coalitions, such as the Global Resilient Cities Network or Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), in regional clusters, such as Energy Cities or the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. However, to conduct sustainability projects on the ground, cities and local governments rely on regional and national governments, international funding schemes, civil society engagement, and private corporations that all operate in the multi-level governance system.

A 1997 report observed a global consensus that sustainable development implementation should be based on local level solutions and initiatives designed with and by the local communities.^[17] Community participation and partnership along with the decentralisation of government power to local communities are important aspects of environmental governance at the local level. Initiatives such as these are integral divergence from earlier environmental governance approaches which was “driven by state agendas and resource control” and followed a top-down or trickle down approach rather than the bottom up approach that local level governance encompasses. The adoption of practices or interventions at a local scale can, in part, be explained by diffusion of innovation theory.^[18]

At state level

States play a crucial role in environmental governance, because "however far and fast international economic integration proceeds, political authority remains vested in national governments".^[19] It is for this reason that governments should respect and support the commitment to implementation of international agreements.^[20]

At the state level, environmental management has been found to be conducive to the creation of roundtables and committees. In France, the Grenelle de l’environnement^[21] process:

• included a variety of actors (e.g. the state, political leaders, unions, businesses, not-for-profit organizations and environmental protection foundations);
• allowed stakeholders to interact with the legislative and executive powers in office as indispensable advisors;
• worked to integrate other institutions, particularly the Economic and Social Council, to form a pressure group that participated in the process for creating an environmental governance model;
• attempted to link with environmental management at regional and local levels.

If environmental issues are excluded from e.g., the economic agenda, this may delegitimize those institutions.^[22]

At the global level

Example thematic issues at the local level

See main article: Human impact on the environment and Environmental degradation.

Biodiversity

Environmental governance for protecting the biodiversity has to act in many levels. Biodiversity is fragile because it is threatened by almost all human actions. To promote conservation of biodiversity, agreements and laws have to be created to regulate agricultural activities, urban growth, industrialization of countries, use of natural resources, control of invasive species, the correct use of water and protection of air quality.

To promote environmental governance for biodiversity protection there has to be a clear articulation between values and interests while negotiating environmental management plans.^[23]

Socio-environmental conflicts

Environmental issues such as natural resource management and climate change have security and social considerations. Drinking water scarcity and climate change can cause mass migrations of climate refugees, for example.^[24]

Social network analysis has been applied to understand how different actors cooperate and conflict in environmental governance. Existing relationships can influence how stakeholders collaborate during times of conflict: a study of transportation planning and land use in California found that stakeholders choose their collaborative partners by avoiding those with the most dissimilar beliefs, rather than by selecting for those with shared views. The result is known as homophily - actors with similar views are more likely to end up collaborating than those with opposing views.^{[25] [26]}

International conventions and agreements

See main article: International environmental agreement and List of international environmental agreements.

The main three multilateral conventions, also known as Rio Conventions (because they were agreed at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992), are as follows:

1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992–1993): aims to conserve biodiversity. Related agreements include the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety.
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) (1992–1994): aims to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would stabilize the climate system without threatening food production, and enabling the pursuit of sustainable economic development; it incorporates the Kyoto Protocol.
3. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) (1994–1996): aims to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought and desertification, in developing countries (Though initially the convention was primarily meant for Africa).

Further conventions:

• Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971)
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) (entered into force on 1 July 1975)
• Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (entered into force in 1983)
• Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) (entered into force on 6 October 1996)
• Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (entered into force on 5 May 1992)
• Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedures for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (effective as of 24 February 2004)
• Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (COP) (entered into force on 17 May 2004)

Environmental conventions are regularly criticized for their:

• rigidity and verticality: they are too descriptive, homogenous and top down, not reflecting the diversity and complexity of environmental issues. Signatory countries struggle to translate objectives into concrete form and incorporate them consistently;
• duplicate structures and aid: the sector-specific format of the conventions produced duplicate structures and procedures. Inadequate cooperation between government ministries;
• contradictions and incompatibility: e.g., “if reforestation projects to reduce give preference to monocultures of exotic species, this can have a negative impact on biodiversity (whereas natural regeneration can strengthen both biodiversity and the conditions needed for life).”^[5]

Until now, the formulation of environmental policies at the international level has been divided by theme, sector or territory, resulting in treaties that overlap or clash. International attempts to coordinate environment institutions, include the Inter-Agency Coordination Committee and the Commission for Sustainable Development, but these institutions are not powerful enough to effectively incorporate the three aspects of sustainable development.^[27]

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), or international environmental agreements, are agreements between several countries that apply internationally or regionally and concern a variety of environmental questions. As of 2013 over 500 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), including 45 of global scope involve at least 72 signatory countries.^{[28] [29]} Further agreements cover regional environmental problems. Each agreement has a specific mission and objectives ratified by multiple states.

Notes and References

1. Web site: Manchester . University . MSc Environmental Governance . University of Manchester . 10 March 2022.
2. Page 8. The Soft Path in a Nutshell. (2005). Oliver M Brandes and David B Brooks. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.
3. IPlanet U, R. Michael M'Gonigle, Justine Starke
4. Web site: Launay, Claire, Mouriès, Thomas, Les différentes catégories de biens , summary and excerpt from Pierre Calame's book, La démocratie en miettes, 2003. . 2009-12-03 . 2009-09-13 . https://web.archive.org/web/20090913042940/http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/en/analyse/fiche-analyse-317.html . dead .
5. http://www.inforesources.ch/pdf/focus_3_05_e.pdf Global Conventions and Environmental Governance; Inforesources Focus No. 3, 2005.
6. UNEP; International Environmental Governance and the Reform of the United Nations, XVI Meeting of the Forum of Environment Ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean; 2008.
7. Web site: Civil Society Statement on International Environmental Governance; Seventh special session of the UNEP Governing Council/GMEF; Cartagena, Colombia; February 2002. . 2009-12-03 . 2009-04-22 . https://web.archive.org/web/20090422073745/http://www.unep.org/civil_society/PDF_docs/3rdGCSF_CS_Statement_IEG.pdf . dead .
8. Underdal . A . 2010 . Complexity and challenges of long term environmental governance . Global Environmental Change . 20 . 3. 386–393 . 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.005. 2010GEC....20..386U .
9. 7,000 municipalities is very few, as over a million municipalities exist on the planet and that initial forecasts were for local agenda 21 actions being adopted in 500,000 municipalities in 1996 and throughout the rest of the planet in 2000
10. Meadowcroft . James . 2002 . Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance . Landscape and Urban Planning . 61 . 2–4 . 169–179 . 2002LUrbP..61..169M . 10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00111-1.
11. Book: Lafferty, William . Implementing Sustainable Development . Meadowcroft, James . Oxford University Press . 2000 . Oxford.
12. Bruyninckx . Hans . 2009 . Environmental evaluation practices and the issue of scale . New Directions for Evaluation . 2009 . 122 . 31–39 . 10.1002/ev.293 . 144373806.
13. Young . Oran . 2006 . The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research . Global Environmental Change . 16 . 3 . 304–316 . 2006GEC....16..304Y . 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004.
14. Folke . C . 2007 . The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later . Ecology and Society . 12 . 1 . 30 . 10.5751/ES-02064-120130 . free . free . 10535/3529.
15. Ostrem . Elinor . 2007 . A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 104 . 39 . 15181–15187 . 2007PNAS..10415181O . 10.1073/pnas.0702288104 . 2000497 . 17881578 . free.
16. Hickmann . Thomas . 2021 . Locating Cities and Their Governments in Multi-Level Sustainability Governance . Politics and Governance . 9 . 1 . 211–220 . 10.17645/pag.v9i1.3616 . 2183-2463 . free. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
17. Leach, M., Mearns, R and Scoones, I. (1997), Challenges to community based sustainable development, in IDS Bulletin Vol 28:4, pp 1
18. Mascia. Michael B.. Mills. Morena. When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conservation Letters. 11. 3. en. 10.1111/conl.12442. 1755-263X. 2018. e12442. free. 2018ConL...11E2442M . 10044/1/76315. free.
19. Cable, V. 1999, Globalisation and global governance, Chatham House Papers, London
20. WHAT 2000, "Governance for a sustainable future", Reports of the Commissions of the World Humanity Action Trust, viewed 22 April 2014, http://www.stakeholderforum.org/policy/governance/future.pdf
21. Operational Committee No. 24 "Institutions and stakeholder representativity" (introduced by Bertrand Pancher); Final report to the Prime Minister, senior Minister, Minister for the Ecology, Sustainable Development and Territorial Planning; 2008, also known as the Rapport Pancher.
22. http://www.eauxglacees.com/Gouvernance-environnementale-vers Laime, Marc; Gouvernance environnementale: vers une meilleure concertation ? (Environmental Governance: towards better consultation?); 2008.
23. 10.1016/s1462-9011(02)00027-8. Environmental governance for biodiversity. Environmental Science & Policy. 5. 79–90. 2002. Sampford. Charles. 1 . 2002ESPol...5...79S .
24. Kaplan. Robert D.. February 1994. The Coming Anarchy: How scarcity, crime, overpopulation,tribalism, and disease are rapidly destroying the social fabric of our planet.. The Atlantic. GLOBAL. 39.
25. 10.1146/annurev-environ-011020-064352. free. Reconciling Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Governance: A Social Network Perspective. 2020. Bodin. Örjan. Mancilla García. María. Robins. Garry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 45. 1 . 471–495. 11343/274185. free.
26. 10.1093/jopart/muq042. free. Belief Systems and Social Capital as Drivers of Policy Network Structure: The Case of California Regional Planning. 2011. Henry. Adam Douglas. Lubell. Mark. McCoy. Michael. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 21. 3. 419–444.
27. Book: Emerging forces in environmental governance . 2004 . United Nations Univ. Press . 978-92-808-1095-0 . Kanie . Norichika . Tokyo . Haas . Peter M. .
28. Inomata, Tadanori; Management Review of Environmental Governance within the United Nations System; United Nations; Joint Inspection Unit; Geneva; 2008.
29. Book: Taylor, Prue. Multilateral Environmental Agreement Negotiator's Handbook: Pacific Region 2013. 2013. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme / New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law, University of Auckland. Samoa / New Zealand. 978-982-04-0475-5. Stroud, Lucy . Peteru, Clark .