1

POS 131 (C): De Guzman

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

In a world where everything can change in an instant, it is unavoidable that we have

incurred a lot of destruction and damage to our natural world. The world has experienced a lot
of global environmental changes (GECs) over time. These GECs may not be equally
experienced by all, in all locations of the world, but it is an undeniable reality that all people of
the world must face. This is where Global Environmental Governance (GEG) comes into play.
Global governance became a call for policy makers and advocates who view it as an answer or
cure to the evils brought about by globalization. GEG is not some random concept without
precedents. Most of what we can consider as GEG discourse is built on substantial series of
studies that have analyzed interstate cooperation in response to global environmental changes,
starting with the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. (Biermann,
2004) This led to a rise in academic studies on intergovernmental environmental cooperation
and organization.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AS A GLOBAL ISSUE

Global environmental governance or GEG, as formally defined, refers to the “sum of
organizations, policy instruments, financing mechanisms, rules, procedures and norms that
regulate the processes of global environmental protection.” (Najam, Papa, Taiyab, 2006)
GEG is comprised of the collective efforts of the international community to manage
and solve their shared environmental problems. GEG today reflects how the world has changed
and how the people’s policies and advocacies had evolved along with the world. (O’Neill,
2009) Global environmental governance rose alongside the emergence of Green Politics in the
1970s. Green Politics is a political ideology that aims to create an environmentally
sustainable international society that is rooted in environmentalism, social justice, grassroots
democracy and nonviolence. (Wall, 2010) Green Politics had began taking shape in the
Western world in the 1970s by groups who had advocated conservation, environmentalism,
ecology and peace.
The four pillars of Green politics were the driving force of its fight for environmental
sustainability. The first pillar, environmentalism, is focused on environment and biodiversity
protection as well as the preservation and proper use of natural resources. Social justice is rooted
in the notion of social equity and inclusiveness. Grassroots democracy aims to create a
 2

democracy for all peoples especially to reach and give equal chances those who have been
previously marginalized. The last pillar, nonviolence, is a pillar rooted in the belief for peace
and order without the need of armed conflict and physical harm.
Environmental changes were not felt by a handful of countries only. Meteorologists
were able to map the world climate patterns enough to infer that climate moved in 500-year
rhythms. However, this rhythmic cycle was disrupted around 1980 and this caused a panic to
rise among the international society. (Vogler, 1996) Before the 1980s, environmental issues
were only discussed in passing in the field of international relations. GECs were mostly
discussed only in relation to matters on the law of the sea or territorial protection. They were
also discussed in a limited manner as encompassed in agreements between states for
their mutual resources and economic partnerships. (Vogler, 1996)
Global environmental governance in international relations was largely focused on
questioning GECs imminence as a threat to security. The international society main dilemma
asked this question: should global environmental issues be considered to be in the same class
as traditional security issues? The notion of traditional security in this context involves
concepts such as human security, territorial integrity, terrorism and transnational crime
among others. In this arena, there is the difficulty of regulating various independent actors in
an otherwise anarchic international system.
On the other hand, global environmental governance had also been a pressing issue in
the field of international political economy. GECs became an extension of long standing
concerns with international cooperation as a means to managing political economy. GEG-IPE
has become concerned over the great economic interdependence among states, creating
a common vulnerability of nations with regard to resource allocations and environmental
degradation. (Vogler, 1996)
Global environmental governance emerged as an issue in IPE because of the need for a
central body of authority to manage resource allocations and the regulation of the usage of
natural resources for economic growth. This is due in part to natural resources being a public
good and the right and privilege of states to use and exploit their natural resources however they
see fit.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A main feature of Global Environmental Governance is its aspiration for Sustainable
Development, which is defined by the Sustainable Development Commission of the United
Kingdom as “a development that meet the needs of the present, without compromising the
 3

ability of future generations to meet their own need.” The use therefore of fossil fuels to meet
the demands of different types of machinery as fuel does not necessarily fall under
sustainable development because of its destructive nature towards the environment through air
pollution.
Although sustainable development is mostly attributed to the preservation of the
environment, it has a much broader scope than the environment where it also aims for
a strong, healthy, and a just society. The well being of people within society is taken
into account by ensuring a sustainable use of resources for the future.
The United Kingdom provides a shared framework that includes five principles where
it illustrates how sustainable development may be attained. The first of these is how the world
should be living within environmental limits. This allows natural resources to remain intact and
unimpaired for future generations to use. Second shows how a just society among people should
be ensured where people’s needs are met equally and sustainably. Achieving a sustainable
economy is the third principle that should provide avenues for the efficient and effective use of
natural resources to be shared by all. The use of sound science responsibly is another principle
that insists policies be based and backed by sound scientific researches and foundations to
provide a strong foundation for policies aimed at achieving sustainability. Lastly, good
governance is a key principle through participatory government systems that allows people
an avenue for creativity and innovation.
Sustainable development therefore can possibly be achieved through small actions
summed up collectively that would effect to change and development. Government however
plays a significant role where it should spearhead the promotion of these actions by providing
policies and regulations that would guide people in making right and sustainable decisions.

ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE
Environmental governance is simply defined as governance that advocates for
sustainable development. This type of governance comprises the rules, practices, policies,
and institutions that shape how humans interact with the environment. Strengthening global,
regional, and national and local governance is a method by which environmental governance is
exercised. This then emphasizes the different roles of states, governments, non-government
organizations, civil society, and the private sector, in the preservation of the environment. As
indicated by the United Nations Environment Programme, sound science for decision
making, international cooperation, national development planning, and international policy
 4

setting are the foundation that make up the principles of environmental governance for
sustainable development.
On the matter of who or what governs in environmental governance, international
institutions are primarily responsible for the facilitation and the promotion of environmental
governance. The United Nations Environment Programme coordinates environmental
activities around the world assists developing countries in environmental law ratification. The
UNEP functions under the United Nations which is the international authority over states in
preservation of world peace and order. Another international institution is the World
Meteorological Organization that acts as a UN agency for weather and climate. This
organization gathers information through various researches and then disseminates them to the
international community. These are only two of many institutions that govern states in
environmental governance.
It is understandable that states are governed by international institutions, however the
exercise of authority over these states remain questionable. A mode of how international
institutions are able to exercise authority is by the formulation of conventions. Conventions are
legally binding agreements, unlike declarations, that compel states to comply with its
provisions. As far as Global Environmental Governance is concerned, Environmental
conventions is a key mechanism in urging states to ratify environmental laws or be subject to
international pressure or condemnation. Environmental governance is not merely limited to
conventions, but it is through conventions and legally binding like treaty agreements
that states be urged to take part in the aspiration for sustainable development in Global
Environmental Governance.

ROLE OF NON-STATE ACTORS IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNANCE
With the rise of globalization and fragmegration, states do not remain as the
main players in the field anymore. (Rosenau, 2002) This phenomenon has invited a wider
audience to participate in global economic issues thus reducing the power of national
governments. This power is then granted to other economic and political actors access to the
world stage. (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
Non-state actors have been very active in global affairs especially as traditional
governance processes are weakened. Through active mobilization support, they foster great
international cooperation making them not only stakeholders but also an important driving
force as well. (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) These non-state actors are comprised of
 5

members of civil society. Meidinger defines civil society as persons, institutions

or organizations who strive to advance a common goal or purpose through ideas, actions and
demands on their respective governments. (as cited in Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) The most
prominent actors of civil society in the realm of environmental governance however, are Non-
governmental organizations or NGOs. Charnovitz says that NGOs are a group of
individuals who come together for a myriad of reasons be it to advocate human rights,
poverty alleviation, animal welfare etc. (as cited in Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
As far back as 1948, the United Nations listed 41 consultative groups composed of
NGOs who are involved in their consultative process. In 1998 however, this number went up to
1,500 making them prominent and influential actors alongside states. Their recent rate of
proliferation have stemmed from numerous factors such as the development of information
technology, greater global interdependence and the spread of democracy. Their presence and
contributions has been most recognized and endorse by the intergovernmental organization of
the United Nations. According to United Nations Conference on Environmental and
Development Agenda 2, “The United Nations system, including international finance and
development agencies, and all intergovernmental organizations and forums should, in
consultation with non-governmental organizations, take measures to . . . enhance existing or,
where they do not exist, establish mechanisms and procedures within each agency to draw on
the expertise and views of nongovernmental organizations in policy and program design,
implementation and evaluation.” (UN, 1994: Chapter 27) This actually underscores the
relationship of NGOs as partners with the United Nations in environmental negotiations due to
their critical role of service delivery and implementation. Thus, NGOs contribute the
following:
1. Expert Advice and analysis
2. Intellectual competition to governments
3. Mobilization of public opinion
4. Representation of the voiceless
5. Service provision
6. Monitoring and assessment
7. Legitimization of global-scale decisionmaking mechanisms (Gemmill
& Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
Their contributions can actually go from local to global making their presence very
noticeable and prominent which actually serves as an advantage for their service delivery and
implementation procedures.
 6

An example of an NGO involved in environmental governance is TRAFFIC, a

wildlife monitoring network designed for the 1975 Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). It is a partnership between the World
Wide Fund and the World Conservation Union. TRAFFIC is the world’s largest wildlife trade
monitoring organization operating with 22 offices in 8 regional programs. (Gemmill &
Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) Based on Rosser, Haywood and Harris’ statistics, 30,000 species of
plants and animals are included in the Convention and they are endorsed by over 150
countries worldwide. (as cited in Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) In support, Wijnstekers
claims that, diversity of their traded goods would be difficult for a single intergovernmental
institution that is why international, on-the-ground coordination is required for their processes
and programs to work. (as cited in Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
According to Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, NGOs have five main roles. First they have
information-based duties. They contribute and have much to offer in information collection,
dissemination, and analysis among state and other non-state actors. Second, Porter asserts
that they have assumed a more active role in the process of agenda setting and policy
development over the years. (as cited in Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) NGOs have been very
active in notifying, reminding or providing awareness among public, governments and
international organizations of critical new issues for a long time now. Third, they serve as
operational partners as demonstrated by TRAFFIC. Simmons explains that they provide and
design implementation processes which cater to specific conditions and can “make the
impossible possible by doing what governments cannot or will not do.” (as cited in Gemmill
& Bamidele-Izu, n.d.) They fill gaps in the provision of services contributed by reduced roles
for many development agencies. Fourth, NGOs are critical actors in assessment monitoring.
This can be shown by TRAFFIC, who monitors international agreements and looks for more
compliance data than what the government provides. And lastly, these non-governmental
organizations have been extremely effective in shedding light on disparities in who bears
environmental burdens on the one hand and who gets the benefits of environmental
investments on the other. (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
With the roles and contributions of NGOs, it cannot be denied that civil society
participation still needs to be enhanced through a strengthened, more formalized structure for
engagement so as to reach a wider audience and to garner more support and effective
outcomes. The United Nations provide programs which seek legitimacy for their policies
with the involvement of civil society. However, NGO participation in relation to their formal
mechanisms remain limited in many parts of the UN system. (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, n.d.)
 7

CHALLENGES TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

It is however evident that global environmental governance is being challenged and
hindered from reaching its full potential and use. Najam et al offered a list of challenges to
global environmental governance and possible agendas that can help reform and improve the
current state of today’s GEG. The first challenge presented was the fragmentation of global
environmental governance and the multiplicity of actors in GEG. The notion of global
governance departs from traditional state-centred politics in accepting a host of non-state
entities as new influential actors in transnational relations. There is a large number of
organizations, regimes and institutions that govern global environment and with the
multiplicity of actors, there is also a multiplicity of ideas and norms. This fragmentation can
lead to conflicting agendas and inconsistencies between and among policies, norms and rules.
Due to the multiplicity of actors in the GEG arena, it is sometimes difficult to impose
a centralized general rule that can meet all the actors’ approval and expectations.
Another challenge that may be recognized as something stemming from the first is the
lack of cooperation and coordination between and among the governing bodies in GEG.
There is also a lack of effective implementation. Due to the fragmentation, the GEG arena is in
a constant state of negotiation and trying to compromise in order to meet and realize the varying
goals of all actors. This causes the realm of GEG to be unable to fully implement goals due to
the various compromises that rules have to meet. There is also an absence of a proper
coordination mechanism for GEG. Since there is no central governing body, actors often
act of their own accord that may or may not be supportive of the others’ goals and
ideals, causing conflicts to rise and a further fragmentation of the actors.
The third challenge that GEG is facing is the fact that global environmental
governance is often discussed outside the environmental arena. GECs do not actually take a
forefront in the agendas of policy and decisionmakers, and is often talked about merely in
relation to other more pressing issues such as trade and investment. While there is an increase
in the discussions and attention given to environmental issues, a great number of institutions
are still focused on issues outside the environmental arena.
These challenges have greatly affected how the global environment is governed.
In order to be able to fully and properly govern the global environment, the international society
must strive to eradicate and resolve these challenges and formulate reforms to push for the
improvement of global environmental governance.
 8

CRITIQUES ON THE LITERATURE

Academic literature on Global Environmental Governance is highly concentrated in the
21st century. Before the 1980s, international relations scholars paid minimal attention to global
environmental problems. The accelerated increase in environmental problems forced humanity
to reevaluate his relationship to the world and to other species around him. GECs only became
an issue of the high politics sort in the 1980s, after the end of the Cold War. (Williams, 1996)
Common Themes
There were a lot of common themes running across a number of the literature
on global environmental governance. The researchers have found the following themes that
have been prominent in most, it not all of the literature that the researchers have gathered on
GEG: (1) That Global Environmental Governance is a real concern for the international
society;
(2) The need for sustainable development;
(3) The North vs. South Divide;
(4) The prominence of the triadic debate;
(5) The neo pluralist perspective.
The first common theme is the belief that global environmental governance is a
legitimate issue in the international society. Authors such as John Vogler, Kate O’Neill and
Matthew Paterson claim that global environmental changes are things that are inevitable and
improbable for humanity from. These changes are part of the continuous reality the the earth
has changed as we know it. There is a real need for cooperation and collective action among
states to prevent further damage and destruction to all states.
Sustainable development is another running theme across the literature on GEG.
Thomas Oatley and the United Nations Environmental Program that there is a need for
sustainable development to prevent the deterioration of the earth and to provide for the future
generations.
Authors such as Vogler, Paterson and Axelrod also highlighted the importance of
GEG with regards to the North vs. South division of the World. Authors have argued whether
or not there is an equal distribution of resources between the countries of the North - the more
developed countries - and the countries in the South, the countries who are still in the
developing stages. This debate have been long running and scholars claim that GEG should be
in full effect in order to provide equity between the two hemispheres of the world.
Another common theme across the literature was the consistency of the use of
the triadic debate in order to explain the concept of GEG in the international political economy
 9

and international relations. Realists tend to see the natural world as a territory and as a means
for realizing a state’s national interests. (Williams, 1996) As for the liberal institutionalist
perspective, states have been immersed in a series or network of transactions and
interdependencies that limits their authority (Williams, 1996) In this view, environmental
degradation is seen as something that has stemmed from the interconnectedness of national
societies. There is an emphasis on regimes and institutions as key actors in resolving these
global environmental issues. Radicals, on the other hand, argue that environmental
degradation stems from capitalism. They see it as the direct result of the various processes of
accumulation, production and reproduction that is inherent in capitalism. (Paterson, 1996)
The neo-pluralist perspective is another common theme in GEG literature.
Environmental pluralism claims that there is no sole source of authority for Global
Environmental Governance. (Williams, 1996) The pluralist approaches gave strong emphasis
on environmental management and problem solving solutions. It proposes open negotiation and
cooperation by earnest and well-meaning people dedicated to navigating the unknowns and
finding higher ground in our search for sustainability.

Gaps and Discrepancies

After reading through the literature on global environmental governance there are
some very noticeable gaps and discrepancies that have been presented b various articles:
(1) The role of the Bretton Woods System;
(2) Neo pluralism as ineffective in GEG;
(3) Lack of an actual solution to managing and improving GEG;
There were discrepancies among GEG literature that contest the role of the Bretton
Woods System in the realm of Global Environmental Governance. Author Thomas Oatley
gave great emphasis on the proactive role that the Bretton Woods Institutes - i.e. the World
Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) - should take with regards to the governance of the global environment. Oatley claims
that the three aforementioned institutions were very much in the frontline of supporting
development and therefore must be responsible for promoting sustainable development and
environmental protection. Author Ronald B. Mitchell on the other hand, claims that the three
aforementioned institutions, which are largely focused on trade and investment, would not be
able to focus in GECs in its environmental sense. As mentioned earlier, it is in these
institutions where GEG takes a backseat in the discussion and is given less attention as
 10

compared to “high politics” issues such as trade, investment and national security. (Mitchell,
2010)
Other authors also claim that the neo pluralist perspective is not as effective as other
scholars think it is on GEG. As mentioned in the earlier section, Najam et al believe that the
GEG realm as it currently is, is fragmented and in multiplicity. There are a multitude of ideas
that can create tensions and conflicts therefore rendering the acts useless even before
implementation.
Another gap that was noticeable in the literature was the lack of an actual solution to the
problems of GEG. Najam et al was able to provide a list of goals that can help improve global
environmental governance but other authors were unable to write pieces on what they think is
the best possible implementation of global environmental governance.
Global Environmental Governance is a real and grave matter that should be given
attention to for the greater benefit of all peoples. The inevitable reality of environmental
changes should be enough to persuade all people to work together to help preserve the
present and to help achieve a better, sustainable future.
 11

References:

Axelrod, R. S., VanDeveer, S. D., & Downie, D. L. (2011). The global environment:
Institutions, law, and policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Environmental Governance. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2016, from
http://www.unep.org/pdf/brochures/EnvironmentalGovernance.pdf United Nations
Environment Programme
Feris, L. (2010). The Role of Good Environmental Governance. Retrieved March 16, 2016,
from http://www.saflii.org/za/journals/PER/2010/3.html
Gemmill, B., & Bamidele-Izu, A. (n.d.). The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Global
Environmental Governance. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from Yale School of Forestry
& Enviromental Studies: http://environment.yale.edu/publication-
series/documents/downloads/a-g/gemmill.pdf
Ivanova, M., & Roy, J. (2007, January). The Architecture of Global Environmental
Governance: Pros and Cons of Multiplicity. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from Center for
UN Reform Education: http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/234
Mitchell, R. B. (2010). International politics and the environment. London: SAGE.
Najam, A., Papa, M., & Taiyab, N. (2006). Global environmental governance: A reform
agenda. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Newell, P. (2008). The political economy of global environmental governance. Review of
International Studies , 34 (03), 507-529. Retrieved from
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/12575/1/S0260210508008140a.pdf.
O'Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Paterson, M. (1996). The environment and international relations (J. Vogler, Ed.). London:
Routledge.
Public Bodies Climate Change Duties: Putting Them Into Practice - Guidance Required by
Part 4 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. (2011, February). Retrieved May 5,
2016, from http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/02/04093254/5
Rosenau, J. (2002) Governance in a New Global Order in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds.)
Governing Globalization. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Vogler, J. (1996). The environment and international relations: Global environmental change
programme. London: Routledge.
Wall, D. (2010). The no-nonsense guide to green politics. Oxford: New Internationalist.
What is sustainable development. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2016, from http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/pages/what-is-sustainable-development.html
Williams, M. (1996). The environment and international relations (J. Vogler, Ed.). London:
Routledge.
World Meteorological Organization. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2016, from
http://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate