20.2: Defining Global Environmental Governance

Governance is an amorphous term that generally implies social constructs created to govern, or regulate, human behaviour. They are rooted in societal norms and values, sometimes translated from and into civil society, institutions, and laws, and implemented by individuals, families, societies, governments and non-governmental organizations. Local and national governance typically refers to hierarchical government-sanctioned institutions and the rule of law, but for global governance, where a single, global governing body is absent or limited, it takes the shape of local, national, and international individuals and institutions, governmental and non-governmental, that seek to influence either local behaviour that has a global impact (e.g. endangered species are of global concern for biodiversity, culture, and evolutionary processes), or collective global behaviour that has a local, regional, or global impact (e.g. collective GHG emissions contribute to global warming which causes rising waters in small island nations and migrations of people across borders).

Governance, when done for just purposes (as opposed to totalitarian, authoritarian, or fascist governance models), focuses on the fundamental relationships needed for harmony, for stability, for sustainable security: harmony between individuals living together with other individuals, and harmony between societies that live together with other societies. Some recent scholars have extended this prerequisite, or even this goal, of good governance–harmonious relationships—to the entire community of life (e.g. the UN Harmony with Nature programme). The recognition and respect for these relationships, and the rules that govern these relationships—or at least attempt to govern these relationships—provide safety, security, and stability for individuals, states, and the global community. As Chapter 16 presents in more detail, good governance is the foundation of our human and societal existence, so it must be part of the response to our most existential crises, such as climate change.

Global environmental governance is global governance as it relates to the environment. As humans upon this planet, we share a genuine universal responsibility to the planet and to one another. In 1992, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Dalai Lama spoke that “universal responsibility was the key to human survival.” (Dalai Lama, 1992). He believed that, “This need for a sense of universal responsibility affects every aspect of human life. Nowadays, significant events in one part of the world eventually affect the entire planet. Therefore, we have to treat each major local problem as a global concern, from the moment it begins.” (Dalai Lama, 1992, n.p.). Therefore, good global environmental governance recognizes interconnectedness and requires responsibility.

The heightened role of civil society, as seen in individual action and the work of non-governmental organizations, in helping shape global behaviour is unique to global governance; and indeed it could be considered the blood-line for GEG. Civil society helps to fill the gap left by the absence of a central governing body, a gap that needs to be filled due to the human and societal need to govern relationships, even across borders. These individuals and organizations are consultants, advisors, scholars, and practitioners to GEG, in principle and practice. They help develop, guide, and inform behaviour at universities and with governments, they inform conferences of the parties for treaty bodies, and they help draft national laws and policies related to local issues that impact the global environment, or global issues that affect local or state governments. They build trends and build solidarity. For example, their scholarly research and arguments can provide the reasoning and text for a state to include the right to a healthy environment in their laws, policies, cases, and constitution, that will then be shared with other scholars and policy-makers for incorporation in their laws, policies, cases, and constitutions. These individuals and organizations even have an important role in the private sector, whether shining a light on corruption, such as the work of Transparency International, or advancing corporate social responsibility and environmental stewardship.

This trend-setting, momentum-building, and information-sharing is currently being seen in youth climate change cases, where children are striking and arguing for their rights and the rights of future generations to a healthy environment (Gwiazdon, 2018). It is also seen in the rights of nature movement, where rivers and ecosystems are being afforded legal personhood in constitutions, legislation, and case law. ^[1] Policy-makers and judges are looking for guidance, reasoning, and decisions outside of their jurisdiction, and—as GEG is cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary – there are park rangers and writers, educators and philosophers, lawyers and scientists, environmental defenders and economists, journalists and linguists around the world helping them develop and move law and policy. These individuals and organizations share knowledge, share successes, share failures, and recognize their strength in numbers. It is much easier for a judge to decide a case, or a state to adopt a constitutional amendment, if they see that others are doing it, and they can also learn exactly how others are doing it (e.g. modelling the particular language, the particular administrative and legal processes, etc.).

GEG, as an extension of global governance, has the same weaknesses as global governance, explored in detail in Section here. A number of challenges exist, including the power of state sovereignty, and of particular states, to control or not participate in global negotiations, or to not be held accountable for harms outside their borders; the rise of nationalism among states; and the difficulty to motivate citizens to care about abstract issues or people far away. Particular to GEG is the sectoral nature of global ‘environmental’ governance that places it in competition with other issues; the absence of urgency, seriousness, and even justice for environmental harms; and the absence of a governing body for global environmental jurisprudence, its drafting, implementation, and enforcement. However, even without a single, central governing entity, common values and principles can be induced from the institutions and norms across nations, their cases, national laws, and treaties.

The Purpose and Principles of Global Environmental Governance

It is sometimes said that the only constant is change, and like the constantly evolving environment on which it relies, GEG is constantly evolving, constantly being informed, and constantly being affected by numerous actors and information. Nearly five decades ago, in 1972 (when The Limits of Growth was published by the Club of Rome), the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden made explicit the connection between humanity and the environment, and the need for a global approach to address the harm to life on Earth. This has been called the watershed moment for GEG, a clarion call for global action. Maurice Strong, the Secretary General of the conference, opened the proceedings with a plea for this new approach, “This… must be the beginning of a whole new approach to the situation. For the environmental crisis points up the need to review our activities, not just in relation to the particular purpose of interest they are designed to serve, but in their overall impact on the whole system of interacting relationships which determines the quality of human life.” (Strong, 1992, n.p.). He also linked bad human governance (here, governance resulting in inequality and injustice) with environmental harms, “Our subject is the human environment. Broadly interpreted, the human environment impinges upon the entire condition of man and cannot be seen in isolation from war and poverty, injustice and discrimination…” He understood that “all nations must accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions on environments outside their borders” and argued that this is “the fundamental principle” that establishes “a minimum basis for effective, international cooperation.” (Strong, 1992, n.p.). He saw the crisis, the cause, the interconnectedness of humanity and harms, and the need for responsibility for those harms.

GEG is an all-inclusive endeavour, and so includes all levels of participation and decision-making, local to global, governmental and non-governmental, individuals and private entities. As diverse actors, the methodologies of the institutions of GEG differ, as well as their reasons for seeking to mould behaviour concerning the environment. However, the general aim of GEG, in its broadest sense, is to protect, provide, and prevent: (a) GEG protects, conserves, and sustains the global environment for human flourishing and for the inherent value of nature; (b) GEG aims to provide the necessities of life for human and social development, including providing stability and security to human individuals and societies, as well as the entire community of life, for current and future generations; and (c) GEG aims to prevent harm, inequity, and suffering, as well as the crossing of catastrophic tipping points for life on Earth.

The many purposes for GEG are seen in organizational mission statements, local, national, and international charters, bi-lateral and multi-lateral treaties (most often in the preambles, where beautiful, aspiratory—and non-binding—language is common), principles of international law, customary international law, state constitutions, and domestic law and policy. They may be subject-matter specific, as broad as climate change adaptation or as narrow as the protection of a particular species; or they may be methodology-specific, such as the educational programmes of the Earth Charter Initiative or efforts to incorporate the rights of nature in law and policy, as seen through the work of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. ^[2]

Maurice Strong, as well as the Dalai Lama, believed that the fundamental principle of GEG was responsibility, or justice, and that is extended here to include principles of democracy, equity and care. GEG advances care for the vulnerable people, places, and species in this world, and care for the past and future generations of those people, places, and species. Care is evidenced in the protection of natural parks, in the designation of biosphere reserves, in the programmes to save endangered species and their habitats, in the laws and policies for clean air and water and soil. Care requires that we extend our compassion to other humans, and also to other species, and the natural foundations upon which all life rests. An important aspect of GEG is expanding our circles of care, from the most intimate to the entire community of life.

When things we care about are harmed, we are moved to act – and this forms the roots of justice. Unfortunately, most if not all great movements were a response to a great injustice, and GEG is no different. The Earth is wholly being harmed by human action, yet few are being held accountable for any harms committed (or at least, as data shows, not enough are being held accountable to prevent future harms or correct harmful behaviour). Is this due to an absence of laws, of enforcement, of political will – or all three? Justice demands we address, who or what is harmed, why and by whom, how can it be made whole again, and how can we prevent future harm? What is true, and what is fair? And who has a voice that determines the rules, regulations, the harm, and the recovery? This is where democracy joins the conversation in GEG. As discussed in more detail below, a fundamental component to GEG is dialogue and diplomacy, informed by many disciplines, from science to philosophy. States, with the assistance of NGOs, come together to address global concerns, yet sometimes these harms are caused, sometimes disproportionately, by particular nations. In the interest of democracy and justice, who has a voice at the decision-making table, and in the interest of equity, are all voices of equal political power? Why are there so many binding (i.e. enforceable by an adjudication body) international trade laws, and so few binding international environmental laws? Why is the continuation of our existence not afforded the same seriousness as our global trade regimes? Who decides this—and why?

The Parties and Practice of Global Environmental Governance

What is exciting about GEG, yet can also be overwhelming, is the sheer number of voices that can and do inform its development. Without a single, centralized governing entity or secretariat body, nearly anyone can have a voice in its organization and movement. The power of that voice, however, is another concern, and will be discussed more thoroughly below when exploring the challenges to GEG.

The environment is the foundation of all life on Earth; therefore, when discussing its protection, and depending on how narrow or broad a particular entity’s understanding of the term ‘environment’ is, all sectors, all disciplines, any individual, any private or public organization, and all nations—in their local governance and in their involvement in global governance, if any – are all potential parties to GEG. Some are explicit in their involvement, like the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Union for the Conservation for Nature, while others can be incorporated into the research, development, or advocacy of GEG by third parties, such as comparative review and research of domestic laws by practitioners, academics, or consultants.

For example, to the latter point, ‘the human right to a healthy environment’ is being asked to be adopted by the United Nations, and so the appropriate bodies of the UN and their consultants—many from non-governmental organizations – are reviewing the laws of nations to see the arguments, cases, and legislative developments in this area. When these laws were being created by nations, they did not have to know or explicitly state that they were informing GEG, but in practice, they are. And data collection for the development of environmental norms and policies will go into all areas of research and development. For example, for an article on human security and GEG, it is important to look to governmental and non-governmental national security bodies that may never or rarely mention the environment, but yet the connections can still be made. If the South China Sea is the largest trade route in the world, and that area is being militarized through artificial island development and the illegal expansion of borders, this not only affects global trade, but also the resources in those waters, the people who rely on those resources, and the increased tensions of the states and the people of the entire region. Because of the actions of one state for national security interests, the economic, environmental, food—human security—of millions of others is now at risk. ^[3] GEG connects these issues, in all of their complexity and comprehensiveness.

To have a full picture of GEG and all that it entails, and also understanding the inter-relatedness of all life on Earth, then all human activities on Earth can and should be considered potential material for its development. For the implications of public health to human security, including climate-related vectors, we can look to the Center for Disease Control (US) or the World Health Organization. For the effects of global trade, including endangered animals or hazardous waste, on human security, we can look to the World Trade Organization, anti-poaching units, or national security bodies. For the importance of the conservation, culture, and natural history to human security, we can look to organizations like the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (Jordan) or the Paris Muséum nationale d’histoire naturelle. For data on the impacts of climate change on human security, we can look to the US Department of Defense or the World Meteorological Organization. To understand GEG and human security, we can look to some small entity that focuses on women’s empowerment in some small city, or some major entity that focuses on micro-lending in some major city. Everyone has the potential to inform GEG—and this is an exciting thing.

Just as the parties of GEG differ, so does their preferred practice. The procedural and substantive methodologies of GEG take several different approaches, depending on their stated aims and audience. A common thread to GEG procedure, however, is the central tenet of dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiations. This is necessary due to the nature of GEG, where each state is its own sovereign entity, and there is no single global governance institution that administers or enforces a particular global law. Nations must speak to one another and nations must compromise if there is to be any viable governance of global issues.

The state is responsible for protecting the conditions of life for its citizens and their personal and communal development, and is at least somewhat accountable to its citizens to do so (i.e. elected officials can be voted out, or citizens can—if pushed far enough—revolt); however, GEG goes beyond the relationship between nations, and into the relationships between all entities and all humans. Yet, the states, with self-imposed limits in justice and jurisdiction, at least when environmental harms are concerned, continue to be the real power-holders. As they consolidate power or refuse to act, or refuse to act enough or quickly enough, others step up to fill the gap. For GEG, those are largely non-governmental entities. However, and most visible with climate change, cities and youth activists around the world are starting to lead the conversation and policies, as well as demand state action on global harms.

Another important procedural aspect that is largely unique to GEG is the heightened role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities in its research, development, and decision-making. GEG includes binding and non-binding laws, and NGOs play a part in all its parts. They offer comparative review and analysis of national laws, looking for trends and new approaches; they review the philosophical underpinnings of current actions in attempts to understand environmental crises, how we have reached them and how we can move beyond them; they offer the scientific underpinnings to many of the principles of GEG, including the utter dependence of humanity on the natural world, as well as the inter-relatedness of all life; and they help to build bridges and solidarity between nations during negotiations and diplomacy efforts. For many intergovernmental organizations, like the UN or IUCN, they also serve as parties, observers, or experts and are able to inform dialogues, treaties, and investigations. The importance and particular role of NGOs in GEG in this age of social media cannot be understated. However, they still lack a key element to global justice for environmental harms—enforceability.

There are several different substantive approaches to GEG in practice, including but not limited to economic, education, ethical, scientific, and law and policy approaches. There are even market approaches to GEG, such as efforts that advance natural capital, ecosystem services, and cap and trade regimes. This chapter does not attempt to pass judgment on particular approaches, but it is important to be aware that institutions that fall under the GEG umbrella are not of a uniform type, and there are even disagreements among the institutions. For example, there are global conservation organizations that use trophy hunting as a conservation practice, and there are those who vehemently oppose such methods. There are those who argue for the commodification of nature to motivate states to better protect it, and those who see putting a price on nature as morally repugnant and ultimately more damaging. It is also important to understand that not a single approach should be seen as necessarily the right, or the only, approach – a point particularly relevant in global governance where all peoples, all nations, and even all species and habitats are taken into consideration.

Another substantive approach that allows for variations in GEG is the positioning of humans. Some entities place humans as the central argument for protection (e.g. human rights approaches), while others take a more systematic, Earth-centred approach (e.g. Earth jurisprudence), and yet still others who seek to address the tension between the two approaches (e.g. trusteeship approaches). Human-centred approaches can be seen in climate change action and land use law, as well as policies that affect biodiversity and endangered species (noting their role in human evolutionary processes and development), freshwater use and access, agricultural practices, disaster preparedness, responses to mass refugees, and military operations.

There are also efforts to transform the human-centred approach, which can be interpreted as utilitarian and largely sectoral, to a more systemic, holistic approach. In 2016, the Ecological Law and Governance Association was launched at the University of Siena as a global, multi-disciplinary network of academics and practitioners that seek to transform ‘anthropocentric, fragmented’ environmental law to a more holistic, scientifically accurate ecological law, understanding that human rights—or even humanity—cannot exist without the natural foundations of life.

A step further is taken by efforts to give legally-recognizable rights to nature completely separate from their value to humans. Such ecocentrism is seen at the local and state level, such as the Constitution of Ecuador which recognizes Pachamama, or nature, as a legal entity, with rights to its own evolutionary processes; the 2017 Te Awa Tupua Act that affords the Whanganui River and ecosystem legal standing; the 2017 ruling in the High Court of Uttarakhand in India that recognized that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, the Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers, and their related ecosystems have ‘the status of a legal person’; and, in 2019, the Lake Erie Bill of Rights Charter Amendment in Toledo, Ohio that gives legal standing to Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes between Canada and the United States that together account for 20% of the world’s freshwater.

Human rights arguments and the rights of nature movement are just a couple of many justice approaches to GEG. This may be the most difficult approach as there is no single global governing entity to implement global environmental law, let alone enforce it, therefore, action and enforcement is dependent upon the will of a particular state. Local, regional, and national courts do hear cases on environmental harms, and those decisions are incorporated within the GEG movement, but there is yet to be a global environmental court to hold states or entities responsible for violations of a global environmental constitution within a global rule of law. Sometimes environmental cases will arise before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but its parties and its jurisdiction are limited. The ICJ will hear disputes between member states if there is a perceived treaty violation or a violation of a principle of environmental law or customary international law, or they will offer advisory opinions if there is a question of international law. ^[4]

In addition, in 2016, the International Criminal Court, an intergovernmental body that hears cases against individuals from member states for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, expanded its prosecutorial remit to include environmental crimes (ICC Office of the Prosecutor, 2016). Although there have not yet been any environmental criminal cases seen before the court, it was seen as a promising development in GEG as an effort to take environmental harms more seriously. Another justice-based approach that is gaining global momentum is the recognition and defence of the rights of future generations. It has been incorporated in numerous charters and constitutions and has been argued successfully in some national courts.