20.3: Global Environmental Governance and Human Security

GEG is fundamentally about the survival and flourishing of life; human security is fundamentally about the survival and flourishing of life. Since the first edition of this publication, in 2013, a formal debate was held on human security by the UN President of the General Assembly. The resulting document was Resolution 66/290, “Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome” (UNGA Res. 66/290, 2012). The document recognized that “human security is an approach to assist Member States in identifying and addressing widespread and cross-cutting challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of their people,” and continued with a common understanding of human security based on eight points, with, as is typical of multi-national documents (at least those where human rights or environmental protections are concerned), very clear lines drawn concerning responsibility and state sovereignty: (1) “The right of people to live in freedom and dignity, free from poverty and despair,” in particularly vulnerable people, with equal opportunity to develop their potential; (2) a people-centred approach that is context-specific, comprehensive, and prevention oriented; (3) peace, development, and human rights, as well as political, economic, social, and cultural rights, are all inter-linked; (4) human security is separate from the responsibility to protect (the UN understanding of Responsibility to Protect is very specific, it provides a framework for state intervention, including the use of force, to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity); (5) human security does not entail the use of force and “does not replace State security;” (6) human security is based on “national ownership” and global efforts are meant to strengthen state efforts; (7) States retain “the primary role and responsibility for ensuring the survival, livelihood, and dignity of their citizens,” and the role of the global community is to provide support to Governments, upon their request; and (8) human security must be implemented with full consideration to the UN Charter, “with full respect for the sovereignty of States, territorial integrity and non-interference.” (UNGA Res. 66/290, 2012). This crucial definition section concludes, “human security does not entail additional legal obligations” on States (UNGA Res. 66/290, 2012). So much of this understanding of human security shows the weakness of any global response to anything that threatens human security – state sovereignty trumps all else, and the global community places no legal obligations to secure humanity, outside of what states choose or choose not to provide. Here, we have perhaps the most legitimate global governance body effectively neutering global action to respond to crises that affect the security of humanity. Is the only reason for dialogue and diplomacy to limit states involvement with other states? Is this the only model of global governance that we have? One founded upon complete submissiveness to State’s rights that global action—and global justice for harms committed—is rendered impotent? Is global governance nothing more than advice ‘upon request’?

While the idea that human security is within the ‘national ownership’ of states (as stated above) may be the standing national or international legal understanding, that does not make it right, or just. Yet, it does perhaps shine some light on why so many humans are insecure today. We are trying to govern as if humans are not affected by other humans, as if citizens are not affected by issues outside of their borders, or with some states, as if the way humans are treated within their borders – good or bad – is justifiable due to state’s rights. Human security is the concern of all humanity, even if global governance has not yet evolved to provide the processes or structure to support this understanding.

Human security is also fundamentally reliant upon healthy ecosystems. The starting point to all GEG should not be state’s rights, but the basic scientific truths that humanity is utterly dependent on the natural environment and that all life is interrelated and interdependent, irrespective of any man-made, artificial boundaries. The state of humans cannot be separated from the state of their environment, yet we see the divisions and separations of the environment from all else every day: ‘environmental’ law, ‘sustainable’ development approach, ‘climate change’ policy, as if the state of the environment and its systemic relations with all life and all human activities can or should be placed on a negotiation table in competition with the economy, or jobs or national security.

And even within these compartmentalized approaches are additional compartments. For example, sustainable development is still seen as three pillars: economic, social, and environmental. Yet, how can society or economy exist without its environmental foundations? As our scientific charts for life on Earth are spiralling downwards (e.g. 83% of wild mammals have become extinct, and microplastics are found in the air, in water, and in nearly every life-form tested—as detailed in Chapter 12), because our frameworks do not speak to scientific truths. There are not three pillars to sustainable development – there is one foundation upon which all else rests, and upon which all else is inter-related, our natural foundations. This is just another example of man-made, artificial borders, but this time within our law and governance systems.^[5]

It is important to also note that those who frame the arguments in terms of compartmentalized and competitive sectors, most often seen as environment versus economy, are sometimes those who are doing the most harm. In this false equivalency and forced competition of environment versus [insert any important issue here, such as national security or human security], the environment will never win; indeed, neither will the issue in competition, as failing to protect the foundations of life ultimately harms all else. GEG helps to re-frame the argument that human security is firstly and fundamentally reliant upon the natural environment, whether it is mass migrations of refugees due to resource scarcity or civil wars caused by climate change, or slave labour used by the shrimp industry due to the high consumptive demand for inexpensive shrimp, alongside corruption and/or a lack of political will to defend human rights. When the environment is separated from security, we are all less secure, we are all more vulnerable.

Twenty years after the seminal UNDP Human Development Report on human security was released, the 2014 UNDP Human Development Report, “Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience,” focused on broadening the human security approach to vulnerability – vulnerability of individuals, communities, and states, and the inherent, systemic, or structural issues that impede human development progress and threaten people’s capabilities and choices (UNDP, 2014). The authors noted that since 1994, several interpretations of human security were too narrow, such as viewing it solely as freedom from physical assault. Vulnerability is “defencelessness, insecurity and exposure to risks, shocks and stress,” and “one way to reduce vulnerability is to prevent disasters,” such as the global approach to climate change or the organization of global financial systems. (UNDP, 2014, p. 15). The following section elaborates on the particular concerns behind the notion of vulnerability and the threats we are facing in the Anthropocene.

Global Environmental Crises and Human Security

In 1994, it was understood that human security was safety from hunger, disease, crime, and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in our lives, whether at home, at work, in our communities or in our environment (UNDP, 1994). The effects of environmental harms, and most importantly climate change, are much more visible today than 25 years ago, including their direct and indirect repercussions on hunger, disease, crime, and repression, and their ability to cause sudden, harmful disruptions on our lives. Not only are natural disasters increasing in strength and frequency, but a warming planet is decreasing biodiversity and increasing pests and pestilence. Climate change is creating resource scarcity, desertification, and fostering civil unrest, crime, corruption, and power-grabs, all which is precipitating mass migrations of refugees across borders. A warming, acidifying ocean is also bleaching corals and destroying habitats for innumerable species upon which entire food systems, cultures, and economies rely. The causes of climate change are known, the methods to prevent or halt a warming planet are known, and the steps needed to build resiliency are known – yet states are not acting urgently or effectively enough.

All humanity is vulnerable to the state of the environment, but some more so than others. This is why justice and equity are crucial to understanding human security and GEG, to protecting humanity and their foundations of life. The impacts of environmental harms, and so their correlating impacts on human security, occur disproportionately to the poor and marginalized, to women, elderly, and children, to people of minority faiths, limited opportunity, and indigenous peoples. Not everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, the same access to justice, the same resources or abilities to build personal or communal resilience, or the same infrastructure to be educated, to progress, and to become active citizens. There are direct links between air, water, and food pollutants and disabilities, between public health and environmental health, between access, opportunity, and income. Human security can be achieved through the protection and empowerment of the most vulnerable—for if the most vulnerable are protected, we are all protected.

For a general overview of global environmental crises that threaten human security, it is helpful to look to the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the 2012 Resolution noted above, immediately following the section that defines human security, it states that human security should “contribute to realizing sustainable development” (UNGA Res. 66/290, 2012). In September 2015, almost exactly three years after the passage of that resolution, Resolution 70/1, “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” was adopted by all member nations of the UN (UNGA Res. 70/1, 2015). The Agenda “is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity.” (UNGA Res. 70/1, 2015).

For human development, for societal development, for national development, for global development, the SDGs link priority areas that must be urgently addressed by all nations on Earth. They address all issues where GEG and human security are intimately linked: poverty; hunger; health; education; gender equality; water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation, and infrastructure; inequalities; sustainable cities and communities; consumption and production practices; climate action; consideration for the life below our waters and life on land; peace, justice, and strong institutions; and partnerships. The SDGs show the inter-relatedness of all issues that promote human security, yet even focusing on one – climate change – shows the weakness of GEG. Humanity is in an existential crisis, yet there is an absence of global leadership and global action to address it. This almost seems to be the intended design for GEG, where state’s rights govern state action, and state’s rights govern global action, and with no accountability for global harms. What does that say about the state of GEG if it cannot even respond to the most important global environmental—global life—issue of our time?

Addressing the Challenges to Global Environmental Governance and Human Security

There are several challenges, some already highlighted, to effective GEG (noting that effective GEG helps to achieve human security). Yet challenges are also opportunities for change, and so both will be addressed in this section. Any inquiry into the effectiveness of GEG, or even more broadly global governance, must begin with an analysis of state sovereignty. They are the actors and the inhibitors to global action, and the citizens and industries under their jurisdiction are the perpetrators of and the victims to global harms. They create the systems and laws that govern those within their borders, as well as the systems and laws that govern their relationships with other states. And in global governance bodies, they have chosen to govern by asserting state’s rights. But what about the duties of a state?

The primary duty of the state is to protect its citizens—this is its raison d’être—and as its citizens are directly and indirectly affected by the actions of individuals and industries outside of its borders, and the actions or inactions of other states, a state must engage in global dialogue on global crises to satisfy that duty. In other words, the failure of a state to seriously engage in GEG is a dereliction of its primary duty to protect its citizens. For example, with the climate change talks, powerful emitter nations may simply refuse to seriously engage in global negotiations, or they may actively manipulate negotiations to weaken the resultant agreement. This affects national emission reduction commitments and accountability for present or historical harms outside their borders.

The state protects and provides the foundation for humanity to flourish—and integral in this, is the recognition that all humanity, and all states, are interconnected. The foundational understandings of humanity’s utter dependence on the natural environment, and the inter-connectedness of all life, are directly at odds with the current understanding of a sovereign nation defined within man-made geopolitical boundaries. Harm does not stop at borders and humanity is not made more secure by walls. Our security is dependent upon the actions of one another, and no action can be seen in isolation. Scientific truths must be integrated into law and governance frameworks.

It is crucial that states see themselves as integral parts to the whole, and existing only because of the whole and its relationships within that whole. Thomas Hobbes stated in Leviathan, “He that is to govern a whole Nation, must read in himself, not this, or that particular man; but Man-kind.” (Hobbes, 1651, p. 3). Each state is that protector of the whole—the people, the land, the waters, and the air. They must not only protect their citizens from internal and external harms, but also guarantee that the whole is well cared for, providing the best foundations for which their citizens can flourish and exercise their fundamental rights. The state must also provide the goods and services that individuals cannot provide for themselves, such as a healthy environment, water, and sanitation. They must also provide the infrastructure of care that allows citizens to flourish economically and socially, providing checks on corruption and injustice (Gwiazdon, 2018, p. 9).

Martha Nussbaum is a lawyer, philosopher, and a principal architect of the Human Development Approach, now used by such global institutions as the World Bank and the UNDP. Nussbaum underscores that the duty of a state is to provide its people the ability to pursue a dignified and flourishing life, and highlights ten Central Capabilities: life (being able to live a full life and not die prematurely); bodily health (being able to have good health); bodily integrity (being able to move freely and be free from violence); senses, imagination, and thought (being able to imagine, think, and reason, nurtured by education and training); emotions (being able to love and grieve); practical reason (being able to understand the good and critically reflect); affiliation (being able to live in harmony with others, and with one-self); other species (being able to care for and in relation to nature); play (being able to play); and control over one’s environment, political and material (being able to participate in choices that govern one’s life, have property, and work) (Nussbaum, 2011, pp. 33-34). If states are not protecting their own citizens, air, land, and waters, they are harming the whole; if states are not protecting the whole, they are harming their own citizens, air, land, and waters – and are making all of humanity less secure.

Human security is achieved through justice. Wendell Phillips (1811-1884) was an American lawyer and social reformer dedicated to the abolition of slavery. Confronting this grave inhumanity, he argued, “the first duty of society is JUSTICE.” (Phillips, 1891: 6). ^[6] The very purpose of the justice system is to provide the rules and institutions for governing sustainable and stable human societies, and inasmuch as possible, for preventing cruelty and great harm. To the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC), “Justice never is anything in itself, but in the dealings of men with one another in any place whatever at any time it is a kind of compact not to harm or be harmed.” (Epicurus, 1926, p. 103).

People need to know that when harms occur, the perpetrators will be held to account, and the victims will be made whole. Yet, as discussed above, there is no consistent mechanism to seek justice for global environmental harms. There is no global environmental court, and even the ICJ and ICC are limited by procedural and subject-matter jurisdiction. If states ratify a treaty, however, there is usually a set legal recourse, and some states do adopt international agreements through local policies or national legislation, which are more directly enforceable. But for the most part with GEG, states can always rely on their state sovereignty—they can always ultimately choose not to be a party to any global agreements, no matter their contributions to global harm or to other nations or vulnerable peoples. They can choose not to recognize the jurisdiction of a foreign or global court. They can retreat from their global responsibilities behind their artificial, man-made walls.

The lack of accountability for global harms and the lack of enforcement of international environmental agreements—in other words, the lack of justice in GEG—is a, if not the, major challenge to its effectiveness and its ability to foster human security. Even when data is clear that, for example, the emissions from these nations are major contributors to global climate change, that those emissions harm others outside of their borders, and that those being impacted most severely are the poor and vulnerable, and also the ones who are not causing the harm, there is no accountability. If states can cause measurable harm to individuals outside their borders without accountability, then is there truly no justice in global environmental governance?

The inquiry into justice is eternal. The noted German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) knew that “there must be continually be new legal determinations.” (Hegel, 1991, pp. 212-213, explained throughout §216).^[7] Justice can never be perfect or complete; it is alive, evolving, progressing. As such, and as Amartya Sen, the noted philosopher and author of The Idea of Justice, argues, “We need justitia, not justitium.” (Sen, 2009, p. 74). In other words, we need a living, evolving justice process, not a stagnant, obstinate justice principle. If the primary duty of the state is to protect, and the first duty of a society is justice, then it is no surprise that we are facing so many global environmental crises. GEG affords no duty to protect, there is no duty to provide justice. After all, without a global governing body, who would own and enforce that duty?

Another challenge to GEG is the anonymity of global governance in general. In seeking common principles, in seeking universality, the particular – the biodiversity, the culture, the languages, the environment that makes us particular, individual persons often disappears, and so does their power to motivate and lead to real change. It is simply more difficult for people to relate to a larger, amorphous, unknown whole than the particulars of their own home, community, or nation. It is argued that the further we go out from our most intimate circles of care, the less we care. It is much easier to not respond to harm thousands of miles away, than harm immediately in front of us. This can be overcome, however, through the understanding and application of ubuntu and rooted cosmopolitanism. Rooted cosmopolitanism is the idea that we can be informed and rooted by our local experiences, without losing sight of our global place, of our global relationships. We must see our humanity in others, and because of others. We must see our security in others, and because of others—not as defence from others.

A Way Forward: A Relational Approach to GEG and Human Security

Ethics is the foundation of the rule of law, and we need an ethical principle to guide the future of GEG. Ubuntu is a relational ethic from tribes across Southern Africa that has been explored and advanced in great depth by some of the world’s most thoughtful political and spiritual minds, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela. Ubuntu is an ethic – or a set of values – of care and interdependence. And it is an ethic that directly confronts all of the major challenges of GEG, from strict interpretations of state sovereignty that foster nationalism and isolationism, to power imbalances and predation or disregard of the vulnerable, and even the disconnect from far-away harms.

Ubuntu roughly translates into, “I am because we are,” and places our identity, our humanity, within our relationships to others. It understands that “my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound, in yours” and “a person is a person through other persons.” (Tutu, 1999, p. 31). This is not at the expense of the diversity of local people, places, and cultures, but through that diversity. The principles and values behind ubuntu should be extended to the state; after all, a state is only a state because of other states.

Embracing ubuntu could also help us confront another challenge to GEG, the rising trend of hyper-nationalism as an excuse to refrain from global dialogue on our global crises. We see this most notably in the withdrawal by the US – the world’s largest emitter – from the climate change talks, and indeed, their President’s self-proclamation as a nationalist. Nationalism and hyper-individualism more easily allow for harms to the ‘other’ occur, and this may be a root cause to many of our global crises. The true, relational aspect of state sovereignty must be brought to the forefront instead of the harmful hyper-individualism fostered by hyper-nationalism.

Ubuntu has also been used as a legal and governance principle to heal broken relationships, inequalities, insecurities, the root causes of many of our global conservation, security, and governance crises. Archbishop Tutu believed that through ubuntu, democratic South Africa was “right to deal with apartheid-era political crimes by seeking reconciliation or restorative justice.” (Metz, 2017, n.p.). If “social harmony is for us the summum bonum – the greatest good’ then the primary aim when dealing with wrongdoing should be to establish harmonious relationships with wrongdoers and victims.” (Tutu, 1999, p. 35). Could this be a new framework for GEG?

We may learn much in ethics, law, and global governance from South Africa’s apartheid and their transition into a democracy. “Apartheid not only prevented ‘races’ from identifying with one another or exhibiting solidarity with one another. It went further by having one ‘race’ subordinate…” and allowing that race to harm others (Metz, 2017, n.p.). It made people “less human for their failure to participate on an evenhanded basis and to share power, wealth, land, opportunities, and even themselves.” (Metz, 2017, n.p.). This provides uncomfortable parallels with how states globally govern today. Some have more power than others and use that power to cause harm or shield themselves from responsibility. And some are more vulnerable, and often made-so at the hands of the powerful, such as with colonialism and climate change. Opportunities are unequal, power is unequal, life is unequal. Is our current system of global governance a model of global apartheid?

We see these power imbalances in nearly every global negotiation. Indeed, it is embedded within the very structure of the UN, whereby even the collection of 134 developing nations known as the G-77 (it was founded in 1964 with 77 member nations), does not carry the weight of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Power imbalances create unjust laws and foster inequity and inequality – they create instability and insecurity, and these imbalances are not the sole province of states. This is seen when powerful industries flood money into lobbying to control legislation or even to determine how arguments are framed, including campaigns to deliberately disinform. We must commit to re-define how we negotiate laws if we ever hope to address the inequities and injustice that these agreements create or allow.

We must extend the ethic of ubuntu to the community of states. A human is a human because of, and among, other humans; humanity is defined by, empowered by, constrained by, and conditional upon others, and our relationships to others. A nation is a nation because of, and among, other nations; sovereignty is defined by, empowered by, constrained by, and conditional upon others. And in no just governance system can one harm another without consequence.