20.1: Introduction

In its most basic sense, global environmental governance (GEG) is an attempt by civil society, governments, and even private entities, to address environmental issues that must be addressed collectively, if we hope to address them at all. For example, with climate change action it is crucial for states—who have regulatory authority over their citizens’ actions – to commit to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, and the absence of any one state in agreements to do so, particularly a state with high GHG emissions, can harm all global efforts. For global governance, where collective action is required for the stability and security of individual persons and the global community, the unwillingness of certain states to engage in global dialogue can cause egregious individual, state, and global harm.

Similar to state governance actors, mechanisms, and institutions, global governance is influenced and implemented by a variety of parties, with a variety of methodologies, and within a variety of institutions. If governance literally means, ‘the action or manner of governing’, a hierarchical structure of formal government institutions is implied. However, with global governance, there is a lack of a central, governing body with an equal representation of members. There is also a lack of a guiding document or constitution with principles to guide behaviour and law, a lack of a regulatory body to ensure and oversee implementation of those rules, and an enforcement body to hold members accountable for any transgressions. Although the United Nations (UN) exists as a global governing body, as explored below, the power of its members is unequal, its resulting documents are often unenforceable, and within all branches of the UN, state’s rights still reign supreme.

For global governance, and thereby GEG, the term governance is interpreted more broadly than local or state governance. Global governance incorporates all individuals and institutions that work together to help guide global behaviour on a particular issue, or local behaviour that has global impacts. The term ‘global’ is indicative of the breadth of its scope, as opposed to the limits of its institutions (i.e. only institutions that have a mission to address global issues). Global governance is informed by and represented in local, national, and regional governance institutions.

Put simply, GEG addresses global environmental issues. However, as it is understood that all life is interconnected, and all humanity is utterly dependent upon the natural environment, so even seemingly local issues are important to consider for their broader impacts. This alone makes the scale and scope of applicable issues difficult to identify. What happens in one state, or even by one industry, can rarely if ever be contained within man-made, legal boundaries. However, GEG attempts to address these global issues—created by bounded states—to prevent global crises, and with mixed results.

Our global environmental crises cannot be separated from our global governance crises, and the sectoral, piece-meal approach of GEG, and even traditional national and international environmental law to date, is not responding with the seriousness and the urgency that our current crises require. And we are witnessing its failure: a rapidly changing climate, the increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, mass biodiversity loss, the acidification and depletion of our oceans, and plastics and pharmaceuticals found in nearly every waterway, and nearly every species, on Earth. The foundations for human community and security, such as combatting poverty, hunger, and inequality, or promoting health, education, and sustainable consumption and production, cannot be separated from clean water, sanitation, and climate change action. As was explained in Chapter 3, Chapter 11 and Chapter 12, our governance systems, created to provide society structure and security, cannot be separated from our environmental foundations.

Our global environmental crises, indeed, all global environmental issues, have direct implications for individual and collective human security. A foundational document to the global dialogue on human security, and the inseparable role of the environment within it, is the 1994 Human Development Report, prepared by the UN Development Programme (UNDP, 1994). The document opens with guidance “Towards sustainable human development,” followed immediately by a discussion on human security, its components, and its global nature. The seven dimensions of human security that UNDP identified include economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security.

It is important to understand that in the Anthropocene all of the components of human security are inter-related, and each ultimately relies upon our natural environment. Depleted natural resources, conflict over resources, and corruption that stems from resource extraction and competition creates economic insecurity. Depleted oceans, depleted soils, and polluted or scarce freshwater creates food insecurity. Poisoned soils and waters, the increase of diseases and pests due to a warming climate, and the targeting of poor and vulnerable populations for waste and industry creates health insecurity. High consumption of resources, mass biodiversity loss, and the loss of ecological integrity harms the foundations of all life, and our evolutionary processes, which creates environmental insecurity. The militarization of resources (as well as enormous military budgets and levels of pollution stemming from military activities), the conflicts that arise over resources, desertification, the lack of clean food and water, national and international land grabs for development, the increase in severe weather events creates personal insecurity. Resource scarcity harms economic, social, and cultural development and opportunities, and fosters corruption and the predation of the vulnerable, which creates community insecurity. And all these factors, and the inability or unwillingness of governance institutions to adequately address them, creates apathy, disempowerment and political insecurity.

Human security is inextricably connected to our natural environment, and global crises require a global response. This chapter will take a closer look at how GEG is responding to our global environmental crises, and the implications for human security. It will define GEG by looking at its purpose, principles, parties, and process. The chapter will then turn to the inseparable relationship between GEG and human security, and the challenges and opportunities for our ever-evolving notions of justice, law, and governance. Lastly, the chapter will offer the ethical and legal principle of ubuntu as guidance on how to strengthen human security, within and beyond GEG.